[FairfieldLife] Re: How TM'ers are set adrift morally and ethically.

[guyfawkes91]

The difference between science and religion is in how the two systems
handle new information which conflicts with existing beliefs. It's not
what you believe it's how beliefs change. In science if new and better
information comes along which doesn't match existing theory then you
have to alter the theory to match the facts. In religion you alter the
facts to match the theory. That's what being a "faith" means, you have
to believe something even though the evidence doesn't support it. 

The test of whether MMY's knowledge is science based or faith based
will come when we have to deal with new and better information, such
as the results from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, due online in a
few months. If the results don't show any evidence for supersymmetry,
or a grand unified theory of the strong and electroweak forces, then
the idea of a unified field theory based around supersymmetric string
theory will be abandoned by the rest of the scientific community. How
John Hagelin responds in that situation will be a litmus test of
whether we have an evidence based theory of consciousness or a faith
based religion of invincibility.

Presently the auguries are not good, all the evidence for "rising
world consciousness" is based on selective reading of the news, i.e.
bending the facts to fit the theory. Things which don't fit the
theory, such as the credit crunch, world food shortages, drought in
the South Eastern States, are ignored. As for unified field theories,
well no one knows, no theory is able to predict what the LHC might
find and preliminary results from Fermilab indicate that there's a
good chance it's not going to find supersymmetric particles. 

As for religion saving the student years of wasteful experimentation
finding out things which are already known, well that's what science
courses are all about. There is no experimentation in religion, you
just accept what you're told without question, and if the evidence
conflicts with belief, then the evidence is wrong. If a religion were
genuinely open to changing theories depending on the results of
experiment then it would be a science.

Now it could be that much of the stuff from the Vedic tradition is
based on past experimentation, trial and error and so on. A lot of
traditional knowledge is like that, even if it's not structured
experimentation it is still derived by adjusting ideas to fit facts.
But that still doesn't make it a science now, that depends on how it
evolves in response to new information. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since TM is being taught in the context of Science, for many, (if not
> all) TM has become Science *in lieu* of Religion!  What a great loss,
> MMY teaches to pull the arrow back on the bow, but he doesn't teach
> *where to aim* the arrow! 
> 
> That is where Religion comes in, the direction given by Religion saves
> the aspirant years and years of trial and error (finding out all of
> this stuff he could have been told up front) by learning it the hard
way.
> 
> But that was not MMY's world ministry, his objective was to turn the
> tide of cultural degeneration and steer society back to the tried and
> true methods of Vedic culture. He compromised, and devised 'Yoga-lite
> for modernity' as the most rapid way to achieve this end!
>

[FairfieldLife] More New Planets Found

[John]

To All:

Please, read the attached news below.

If there are intelligent beings in these new planets, the vedic 
literatures state that they could be of three types:  humanoids like 
those on Earth; devas or demigods; or demons called rakshasas.  
Specifically, Shrimad Bhagavatam mentions that after Brahma was 
created, the prajapatis appeared in the universe.  They are the 
progenetors of human beings.  Therefore, we can speculate that there 
should be humanoids throughout the universe.  The challenge will be 
to prove that the vedic cosmology is valid through actual scientific 
findings.

John R.

Article

Ten New Extrasolar Planets Located 
POSTED: Wednesday, April 02, 2008
FROM BLOG: Science News - Science and Technology News related blog. 
We update often and have unique and fresh content on the latest 
happenings.
 
The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not 
connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein 
are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com. 
 
Swiss astronomers have confirmed the existence of ten new extrasolar 
planets. In the past 6 months ten new extrasolar planets have been 
discovered using the "SuperWASP" observation system.

SuperWASP uses robotic cameras located in the Canary Islands and 
South Africa to track planets as they pass in front of their parent 
star. As the planets pass in front of the star they appear to make it 
blink. By the dimming light of the star, observations can be made to 
detect the planet that's blocking out the light. This is also known 
as the "transit method".

The ten recent planets discovered with SuperWASP are about 160 to 
2,650 times bigger than Earth.

Also, keep in mind next year the Kepler mission will launch using the 
same method. The Kepler mission will use a telescope in space with 
the main goal of detecting earth sized rocky planets located in the 
habitable zone around other stars.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[Marek Reavis]

Stu, I seriously doubt that Jimi Hendrix' soul lies dormant within 
me and the idea of fancy pickin' seems farfetched at present.  I'm 
really hoping to be able to learn to make music, whether with others 
or on my own; mostly on my own, though, I presume.  If I can make 
music, I'm sure I'll love it.

Thanks,

Marek

**



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> > >
> > Curtis, Stu, Anyone,
> >
> > It bugs me that I'm unable to make music and I'd like to learn.  
What
> > would be your recommendations re best instrument to learn?
> >
> > Marek
> 
> Hi Marek,
> 
> I have played piano since I was a kid.  Played drums in a high 
school
> rock band and piano in the high school jazz ensemble.  I have 
always had
> a guitar kicking around and got serious about it about 10 years 
back.
> 
> The guitar is a good place to start because they are convenient.  
And
> piano/keyboards are a good place to start because its a totally 
solo
> instrument - Unless you do some fancy pickin' your are gonna need 
some
> buddies to play guitar with.  Perhaps you are inspired by Jimi 
Hendrix
> and want to learn to play like him, or always liked harpsichord 
music. 
> Gotta go with what you like.
> 
> After you pick an instrument, you have to find an inspiring and fun
> teacher.  At first an instrument feels weird in your hands.  I 
remember
> teaching my son power chords and he wondered how he could hold his 
hands
> that way longer than 5 seconds.  Now its second nature.
> 
> Practice, listen to other players, enjoy it.  Don't worry if your 
good
> or bad at it.
> 
> s.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[Marek Reavis]

Hey, Sal.  I used to have a recorder and tried to learn it but for 
some reason, it just never caught on with me.  I'd studied clarinet 
in high school, too, for a year and even though I love the sound of 
clarinet (and saxophone) I just don't seem to take to wind 
instruments for myself.  My former spouse played the flute and 
taught me a little of that but again, it just didn't seem to suit me.

I'm hoping to make a breakthrough sometime with something, though.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:54 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:
> 
> > It's not just the
> > musicality per se for me, and I don't contemplate performance, 
but
> > I'm interested in the whole process of learning an instrument; 
and to
> > paraphrase Brendan Perry of Dead Can Dance, being able to 
consciously
> > interact with a "dead" instrument to bring out not only its 
unique
> > aural properties, but to create the sound of consciousness by
> > collaborating with the instrument.
> >
> > And portability would be a fine thing, too.
> 
> Marek,
> How about the recorder?  It's definitely portable, not too 
difficult  
> to learn the basics, and it's beautiful.  And most of them are 
not  
> real expensive.  You could start out with that and then go on to  
> something more complicated.
> 
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[Marek Reavis]

This might be getting all out of hand for me, but harmonicas are 
always cool and if I'm making weird sounds in the truck while I'm 
sitting at a stoplight, that'll be fine, too, I guess.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, Curtis is right, keep a harmonica in your car. 
> Any idiot can learn to play a harmonica, though
> bending the notes and doing good blues is a little
> harder.  But if you can sing it, you can play it on a
> harmonica.   
> 
> 
> --- Marek Reavis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks, Jim, I really appreciate the suggestion but
> > I probably 
> > interface too much with the computer as it is.  It's
> > not just the 
> > musicality per se for me, and I don't contemplate
> > performance, but 
> > I'm interested in the whole process of learning an
> > instrument; and to 
> > paraphrase Brendan Perry of Dead Can Dance, being
> > able to consciously 
> > interact with a "dead" instrument to bring out not
> > only its unique 
> > aural properties, but to create the sound of
> > consciousness by 
> > collaborating with the instrument. 
> > 
> > And portability would be a fine thing, too.
> > 
> > We'll see.  Thanks again.
> > 
> > Marek
> > 
> > **
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> >  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek
> > Reavis" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> > "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > Curtis, Stu, Anyone,
> > > > 
> > > > It bugs me that I'm unable to make music and I'd
> > like to learn.  
> > > What 
> > > > would be your recommendations re best instrument
> > to learn?  
> > > > 
> > > > Marek
> > > > 
> > > > **
> > > It depends what you want to get out of it-- if you
> > want to perform 
> > > for others, then you have to get an instrument and
> > learn it. 
> > > 
> > > On the other hand, if you just want to compose
> > songs to burn to CDs 
> > > and play them for yourself and others, I've been
> > getting a lot of 
> > > fun out of a software program called Music Maker
> > v12, by 
> > > www.magix.com. The documentation is non-existent
> > because it is a 
> > > German program translated into English, but the
> > cool thing is it 
> > > uses a graphical interface which is pretty
> > intuitive and easy to 
> > > use. The music is created by assembling 2-4 second
> > samples on 
> > > something like a spreadsheet. Has multi track
> > capability and each 
> > > sample can be copied, pasted, and modified with
> > fades and volume 
> > > adjustments. 
> > > 
> > > I always wanted to compose the ulitmate electric
> > guitar solo, which 
> > > I posted yesterday here-- see my post, "Big
> > Spring". Takes about 10 
> > > to 20 hours to put together a full tune. There are
> > multiple genres 
> > > to play with, and additional sound pools of
> > samples are available.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, if you are looking for a musical outlet,
> > this one is a 
> > blast.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stu,
>
> There's tons we agree on.  Maybe even everything.
>
> Thank God!  ;-)

No kidding.  I unfortunately am in agreement on your points below. 
Sorry I couldn't find discord.  I will leave comments as I give it a
second read.
>
> Let me make another attempt -- If the below is not resonant with you,
> then I would say it indicates merely an incongruence in our spiritual
> educations -- not a cognitive dissonance between precise axioms.  (I'm
> going to ramble, be a poet, as usual, but hopefully I'll get my points
> across.)
>
> First let me say that the "soul" is not "the ultimate" to me, and that
> the ego is another notch less substantial than soul and is a merely a
> "ray" or "partial expression" of the "soul's spectrum of light."
>
> To me the soul is all the processes of body/mindand nothing more.

Isn't confusing to use a personal definition of a word?  Good
communication requires us to agree on a common meaning for a word.
Main Entry:1soul  [Listen to the pronunciation of 1soul] Pronunciation:
\ˈsol\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English soule, from
Old English sawol; akin to Old High German seula
soulDate:before 12th century   1: the immaterial essence, animating
principle, or actuating cause of an individual life2 a: the spiritual
principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings,
or the universe bcapitalized Christian Science : god
  1b3: a person's total
self4 a: an active or essential part b: a moving spirit : leader
 5 a: the moral and
emotional nature of human beings b: the quality that arouses emotion and
sentiment c: spiritual or moral force : fervor
 6: person
   7: personification
   8 a: a strong positive feeling (as of intense
sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American
performers b: negritude
  c: soul music
  d: soul food
  e: soul brother

>
>
> It is not eternal.
>
> TM says this too if you examine what Unity must be -- the death of
> ego, the death of individuality, the death of, erp, soul (as a
> worshiper,) and Unity is as if God suddenly is taking over the
> body/mind and the history of that body/mind is obviated.  Which sounds
> creepy, eh?  (Ocean to river: "Who cares about your tiny stream!")
>
> To Advaita, "soul" is still relative, but its "pure form" is also
> given the elevated status of "amness" -- that's if the ego is
> quiescent.  The ego can can't help itself from identifying with
> personality, but it's really stretching things for it to try to
> identify with amness -- that buzz of being, that ground state of
> existence, the gunas balanced.
>
> It takes a couple decades in a Zen ashram to train the ego to even be
> able to clearly see its "basic buzz." If done perfectly, then ego has
> learned to surrender to the spontaneous manifestations of amness, and
> one is a saint (unenlightened but perfectly life supporting) who is
> capable of always living at the ritam level.  Or so the theory goes.
>
> But when that saint dies, he/she dies.  Any heavens imagined, any
> karmic debts thought owed, any anys of anything, must exist solely
> within that saint's body/mind, and they too will die.
>
> It took me years of studying Advaita before it finally, intellectually
> only, "popped" for me that ego is not my identity and that even soul,
> for all its perfection, is not a primal, cosmic identity; it's merely
> another symbol, but one which is as close as existence can get to a
> manifestation of the absolute.

Your're saying we are not our self or our body.  I am with you so far...
>
> I don't think personality survives death.  This includes ego.  This
> includes soul.  Personality, ego, soul -- these are THINGS.  This
> includes amness's symbolic presence as a process in a nervous system.
>  At death, a light goes out; personal amness processes are turned off.

So much for the Mormon conception.
>
> But I do think that "that" from which, well let's not be shy,
> EVERYTHING has emerged is eternal, and that, if one wishes to do so,
> one can train the ego to stop being a pest long enough for this "that"
> to stand out clearly. This "that" is not merely "universe" and
> includes "non-universe" too -- see Godel for details.
>
> During training, at first, amness's buzz will beguile because its
> qualities are seemingly divine and more than merely a powerful symbol
> of silence, but, if another notch lower state of excitation is
> achieved, identification is allowed a chance to 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 8:56 PM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:56 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
>  What was the name of the alleged book?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy
> > about
> >>> the TMers getting those results, in particular because they
> > weren't
> >>> meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of
> > stress and
> >>> relaxation.
> >>>
> >>> The issue of "wow, these neophytes got the same results as these
> > long-
> >>> time Buddhist practitioners" simply didn't arise in his mind.
> >>
> >>
> >> He should rest assured that the research was most likely of a
> >> questionable nature. I've seen similar things with early TM
> > research
> >> which tried to compare itself to other forms of meditation and
> > were
> >> based on the erroneous assumption that the parameters which were
> >> beneficial for TMers should be the same for others. Another way
> > they
> >> did this was to deliberately and consciously inflate baseline
> >> measurement of metabolism. The result is TM actually looks
> >> hypometabolic (a drop in metabolic rate, an indicator of deep
> > rest),
> >> like you see in real yogis. However independent researchers found
> >> they could not duplicate it and it turned out TM was actually not
> >> hypometabolic at all.
> >>
> >> Nowadays we know this is simply not true. There are other forms 
of
> >> meditation which are quite remarkable in comparison to relaxation
> >> response style meditation.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I have no doubt that 30-40 years of strenuous practise of all 
kinds
> > of yoga will produce incredible scientific results.
> >
> > All the more remarkable for TM when you can take someone who's 
been
> > meditating for a few weeks and get similar results.
> 
> What would happen Shemp if I told you that the very basis and  
> "reality" of the assertion 'they are people who meditated in some  
> buddhist monastery for 30 or so years and our data is "better"' 
was  
> one that was falsely presented?
> 
> Do you have any background in statistical analysis at the level of  
> modern scientific inquiry? It might help if you have some 
theoretical  
> and clinical background in 'anatomy and physiology'. Is 
Biochemistry a  
> topic we could flap on in private?
> 
> Have you ever seen a c. 1960's cigarette company ad?
> 
> If you answered "yes" to any of the above then I suggest you may 
want  
> to look closer and as widely as possible as to what you were told 
or  
> might've been "fed".
> 
> My opinion? I would strongly wonder if you'd been duped.
> 
> (sorry for being so direct, but hey, you asked)
> 
> We really should examine more closely what you're sharing here. 
It's a  
> real great point.
> 
> Please do continue to share what you heard or read!


Vaj, for all I know all 600 TM research studies have been 
fraudulently done.

And Maharishi is currently having sex with Mia Farrow's soul up in 
heaven.

I'm still gonna continue to meditate twice a day.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[Marek Reavis]

Curtis, such a wealth of recommendations!  I'm down with the whole 
program, but I don't want to get in over my head.  I've been 
thinking guitar some time now and for lots of reasons, not the least 
is the transcendence of Mark Knopfler who does something to me that 
no one else does.  After Turq mentioned him today I had to skip over 
to YouTube and take a hit of Postcard from Paraquay.  And then 
there's Django Reinhardt who blows me away from a whole 'nother 
angle.

My son took up the banjo about a year ago and I've been really taken 
with that sound, too, but I've been thinking of guitar mostly.  Any 
particular make or model for a beginner like me?  A real concern is 
keeping it in tune; I don't believe I have very good sense of tone, 
but I guess I'll find out.

Percussion is cool; a girl I knew in law school was a tabla player; 
it's so excellent but way beyond my abilities.  When you talk 
of "bending" a note on the harmonica, what do you mean by that?

I would really appreciate some recommendation about what would be a 
good guitar for someone just starting out.  And I'm all for starting 
new things, regardless of age. When I was first teaching TM in Saint 
Louis (1972) I started taking ballet classes at a local studio with 
all these little 11 and 12 year old girls, but within a year or so, 
taking classes everyday, I had moved up to work with the grown up 
dancers and soon was good enough to get a scholarship at a 
conservatory ballet theatre in Kansas City.  

The Russian dancer who ran the school, and who carried her cane more 
as a disciplinary rod than a walking aid, checked out my teeth like 
I was a horse, ordered me to chuck my glasses and get contacts, 
start taking steroids to pump up and work on my upper body so I 
could lift the females properly.  If I hadn't taken a break soon 
after to go to an ATR in Belgium, where I met my former spouse and 
got married immediately after we came back to the U.S., I probably 
would have ended up as an arthritic hoofer in some chorus line.

Thanks for the rex and let me know what you think about what type of 
guitar (make and model) if you think that's something that would be 
important at this stage.

Marek

**



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Curtis, Stu, Anyone,
> > 
> > It bugs me that I'm unable to make music and I'd like to learn.  
What 
> > would be your recommendations re best instrument to learn?  
> > 
> > Marek
> 
> My theory is that whatever instrument you notice most when a band
> plays is a good place to start.  I fell in love with the sound of
> certain instruments and that kept me going in the beginning.  I was
> chasing a sound that I already heard in my mind.
> 
> That said, guitar is a very approachable instrument and you can 
get a
> lot of satisfaction with just a few cords as well as growing into 
it
> for the rest of your life.  Taking a few singing lessons will 
change
> the way you perceive yourself.  Singing is the most expressive
> instrument of all and people often cut themselves short.  We all 
CAN
> sing, we just mostly had shitty musical educations.
> 
> I am a "start an instrument late in life" evangelist.  I didn't get
> serious about guitar till I was about 30.  Two decades later and 
now
> it puts bread on my table.
> 
> And lets not forget the wonder of percussion instruments!  You 
should
> have at least one hand drum in your house to bang on.  Or if you
> notice drum rhythms mostly in music, get an acoustic or electric 
set.  
> 
> And my best musical advise is keep your instruments out, especially
> near the TV.  I rarely watch TV without an instrument in my hand
> grooving in something I'm working on.  It actually helps to have
> something else going on sometimes.  Just 15-20 minutes a day is all
> you need to pick up an instrument.  Sound familiar!
> 
> Always keep a harmonica in your car.  Everyone should play 
harmonica
> in traffic jams!  It helps your melodic sense in your other
> instruments.  Once you learn to "bend" the notes like the Delta 
guys
> it becomes a second voice box.
> 
> Go for it Marek!  What instrument draws you into the music you 
listen to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > **
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > My moms slowly working her way towards Alzheimers.  Right 
now her 
> > memory
> > > > is about 5 minutes long.  She still has her emotions and 
manages 
> > to be
> > > > happy, though that probably the anti-depressants talking.  
Its 
> > been
> > > > toughest on my father who has devoted his life to her care 
now.
> > > 
> > > Sorry to hear that. Most of the patients I saw seemed 
childishly 
> > happy
> > > but a few were not.  The happy ones seemed like they would be 
much
> > > easier to be around.  A local herb grower near DC wrote two 
books
> > > about his own descent into Alzheimers: 
http://tinyurl.com/2yfgn6  He
> > > is locally famous among gardeners because his greenhouse has 
dozens 
> > of
> > > variates from 

[FairfieldLife] was: The Dome Numbers now:

[mainstream20016]

from FFL#166333
 "What is the understanding with Mr. Settle ? That he will 
donate up to $1million per month for the IA program in FF to reach 2500 in the 
domes ? 

Let's do the Girish, and run the numbers:
At the start of IA, FF dome participation was about 500 YF per program.
The goal of IA-FF was 2500 in program each day. Meaning the FF domes were 2000 
YF 
short. Along comes Mr. Settle, who offers 'scholarships of $500 per month to IA 
FF 
participants. Potential donation 2000 YF x $500 = $1million per month 

A really interesting area to ponder - Has Mr. Settle been donating $1 million 
per month, 
with the expectation that 2000 YF on IA scholarships supplement the base of 500 
YF that 
existed before IA ? 
Or, does Mr. Settle donate only about $500,000 per month, based on the actual 
number of 
IA scholarship participants that are in program?
If he has been giving $1million per month, why aren't there more IA 
participants in the 
dome?? "

2 April, 2008- 
The original IA goal was for 2500 yogic flyers in FF , and 1000 in  D. C., 
morning and 
evening.FF had less than 1400 am flyers today. Those 1400 am flyers were 
probably 
composed of: 700 Indian pandits; 500 MUM faculty, students and staff; and 200 
others. 

D. C. is now out of question entirely. Since the D.C. group program goal of 
1000 yogic 
flyers for D.C. will not happen, the FF numbers would have to increase well 
beyond 2500 
to compensate.  Perhaps to 3000 in FF, am and pm., to approximate the original 
goal of 
2500 in FF and 1000 in D.C. 

What is achievable in the next six months (the height of the U.S. campaign 
season)?  
1000 pandits;   750 MUM;  750 others - total of 2500 for evening program.   and 
1750 in 
am.  

Such an  increase will require an additional 250 Indian pandits, an additional 
250 MUM, 
and an additional 500 others (drawn from FF, America, and the world).  

Overall, 2000 people have to be subsidized completely.  IMHO, it will require 
an increase 
in scholarship from $700 to $1000 per month X 2000 =  $2 million per month, 
instead of 
$1 million per month.  What do you think, Mr. Settle ?Any new oil 
production off the 
Louisiana coast lately ?  




  




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" 
>  wrote:
> >
> What would you tell Howard?
> 
> Howard Settle
> 
> 
> > On Apr 1, 2008, at 11:14 PM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote:
> 
> 
> The numbers.  I got introduced to someone who had lunch with Howard 
> Settle last week.  Howard is wondering, why are there so few 
> Fairfield meditators in the domes?  
> 
> What would you tell Howard about this?
> 
> > vaj writes:
> I'd ask him if he was familiar with the concept of "support of 
> nature". 
> 
> I'd also explain that this is actually different from support of 
> millionaires.>
> 
> 
> Doug writing:
> 
> I think his support of all of this is exceptional amongst the 
> millionaires.  Is extremely utopian in vision.
> 
> Practically, there definitely are a number of meditators in town who 
> have benefited from Settle's support for being in the dome 
> regularly.  Quite a lot of folks have always lived thread-bare to be 
> in Fairfield for the large group meditations.  Folks who do live and 
> work, like poor church mice, getting by on what crumbs they need to 
> live.  Simple lives to simply live here.  Howard has actually 
> supported that generously.
> 
> Howard's income has been a blessing to keep things going for a core 
> of some people.   That kind of support gives a base line of 
> disciplined folks who still live in the middle there.  It has been 
> extremely high-minded support to try to get a job done by Howard 
> Settle  
> 
> Recently a number of people I run in to of this category are not 
> renewing their `scholarships'.  600 a month or $700 a month is just 
> not enough & while the required attendance time is too much time to 
> live with.
> 
> If Howard is going to continue with income support for the grand 
> experiment, take a look at the census bureau reports on income level 
> for just povery.   Or, think of the lower Social Security payments 
> for retired working folks that are now about $1,200 per month.
> 
> 
> http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html
> 
> For instance, poverty at 10,787 divided by 12 is 906.50 per month.
> 12% of the US population lives under the poverty levels.  Probably a 
> higher percentage of meditators live there to be here in FF.  
> Probably higher percentages of the meditating community live in the 
> lower fifth of income than is usual to be here.  There is a lifestyle 
> of high-thinking and plain living that goes on here that is utopian 
> special in people.  Is partly what makes the place such a unique to 
> live.
> 
> 
> Certainly, A million a month, if 50% would not get siphoned off to …
> Indian (?) pockets, could do a lot more direct help here in the 
> community.  Fo

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
 The kids who before the concert knew only "Money For Nothing" 
> leave the concert humming "Madame Geneva's," a song that 
> could have been sung, or written, in Shakespeare's England. 
> They've had their musical horizons expanded, because a great 
> artist refused to lower *his* horizon. He showed them what 
> he sees and hears in this music, and trusted them to be
> *able* to see and hear it themselves. And they did.
>
WOW. Am I hearing this right? the champion of the common people, the 
crusader against all those who would feel *special* about 
themselves, making the case that if all you can afford is an iTunes 
download of "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits, vs. a 200 Euros 
ticket (about $310) to a Mark Knofler concert in Barcelona, you are 
listening to purile, "dumbed-down" music, and being pandered to by 
artists more interested in making an easy buck, than "horizons 
expanding" music???

I hardly know where to begin. First I'll begin with the artists; all 
of those "overnight successes", most of whom will spend their entire 
lives wishing they could get enough money from their work to perform 
full time. So, gasp, they sometimes produce art (music, TV, movies, 
paintings) to pay the rent. And, gasp, some of it turns out to be 
damned good. 

Please point out this plethora of performers you are aware of who 
consciously "dumbs down" their talent purely to make a buck-- who 
have the skill to knowingly generate crap at the expense of their 
art. 

And this, coming from a guy who knowingly indulges in one of the 
driest, least creative forms of writing in order to make a living. 
Why? Because it is safe. You can't hack it in the ultra competitive 
world of creative writing, so you do what is safe. Someone could 
easily make the point that you dumb down what you do, just to make a 
buck.

As to your assertion that only this elite tip of the iceberg of the 
arts is truly worthy to entertain you, have you ever considered that 
all of it is worthwhile? Maybe not to someone who always needs the 
cutting edge "authenticity" of expensive concerts, artwork, 
etcetera, in order to feel alive, but for the rest of us, the 
entertainment industry does an OK job of producing good stuff. 

Example: I was enjoying an episode of "Celebrity Apprentice" the 
other evening, and they had performances by the Backstreet Boys and 
a country singer (I forget his name) on the show. I enjoyed both 
thoroughly! Not really my musical preference, but I really 
appreciated the talent, the professionalism, and the tunefulness of 
what I heard. 

In all that "dumbed down" art out there is a wealth of creativity, 
of expression, and just plain enjoyment. With the entire universe 
available, pretty much anything I want, at any time, there is far 
more magic in what you consider the ordinary, "dumbed down" version 
of things than you can ever imagine. 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Jeffrey]

Hi Sal, 
you may be perfectly happy, and that's good for you. But so many 
people seem to complain endlessly about the injustice and unfairness 
within the community, yadda yadda. And generally they make good 
points. I am not saying that you should be miserable, I am only 
reflecting what I hear from many of the Fairfielders who post on 
here. You "should" be whatever it is that you feel you are. 
I did live in Fairfield at one time. I generally loved it at the 
time, but there is no ignoring the serious problems that exist in 
the TMO, and they arent going to change, as far as I can tell. I 
couldnt see any point to being in Fairfield if I werent involved in 
the TM community as a whole. 
If there is some hidden Shangi La out there for all the ex-
communicated meditators, that's fanstastic! I just never saw it 
myself. And if this Shangri La does exist, stop whining!! (that is 
addressed to the disgruntled, not to you who are content.)
Jeffrey

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Jeffrey wrote:
> 
> > Doug,
> > you make many good points about the dogmatism and the accepted 
bad
> > behaviors of the TM Movement. What I can't understand is why so 
many
> > people stay in a situation where there is so little respect and
> > concern for them as indidviduals, and where they are living in
> > poverty, or below the poverty line? And many of these people 
don't
> > go to the dome, either. What is the point of hanging out in
> > Fairfield, unless this is simply what they want for themselves? 
They
> > may complain, but are actually comfortable with being miserable, 
or
> > at least discontented. Why not stop complaining and just admit 
that
> > Fairfield is a disappointment, but that is exactly what they 
want?
> 
> But Fairfield is *not* a disappointment, Jeff, or else most of us  
> wouldn't be here.  Fairfield is not the TMO, there is much more 
than  
> that here, both spiritually and in just about any other way too.  
I  
> wouldn't consider leaving, and I haven't been in the domes for 
around  
> 14 years.  Your idea that the people who are here but not going 
to  
> the domes are wallowing in misery is just plain dumb, no offense 
of  
> course.  We're here because we love it, plain and simple.  And 
many  
> if not most of us could live somewhere else if we wanted to.  We 
don't.
> 
> I sometimes think that when people such as yourself come in here 
and  
> try and
> tell those of us who are living here quite happily what a dump it 
is  
> and how miserable we should be (or you'd be if it were you) that  
> there's some hidden agenda or something.
> 
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> snip
> 
> > Child's play. Hours my friend, hours and days are the time of real  
> > yogis.
> 
> And even eternity, Quote from MMY from the book, The Vedas: "About
> immortality on the *physical level*, I happened to mention some
> teaching in the Gita about a cessation of aging process.As the
> metabolism is reduced.Simultaneously the body, the mind, the
> entire functioning of the inner machinery comes to zero.
> 
> Cessation of activity results in cessation of the decaying process, as
> long as we can be in that state, the process of decay ceases to
> be.mental and physical planes come to the level of the spiritual
> plane (prana) which has eternal life and knows no change.  MMY page
> five  The Vedas.

Any chance we can use both Guru Dev and Maharishi's unexceptional
aging processes as counter evidence?  What, there is a magic guy in
India who wasn't "active?"  OK I get it...





>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> >
> Curtis, Stu, Anyone,
>
> It bugs me that I'm unable to make music and I'd like to learn.  What
> would be your recommendations re best instrument to learn?
>
> Marek

Hi Marek,

I have played piano since I was a kid.  Played drums in a high school
rock band and piano in the high school jazz ensemble.  I have always had
a guitar kicking around and got serious about it about 10 years back.

The guitar is a good place to start because they are convenient.  And
piano/keyboards are a good place to start because its a totally solo
instrument - Unless you do some fancy pickin' your are gonna need some
buddies to play guitar with.  Perhaps you are inspired by Jimi Hendrix
and want to learn to play like him, or always liked harpsichord music. 
Gotta go with what you like.

After you pick an instrument, you have to find an inspiring and fun
teacher.  At first an instrument feels weird in your hands.  I remember
teaching my son power chords and he wondered how he could hold his hands
that way longer than 5 seconds.  Now its second nature.

Practice, listen to other players, enjoy it.  Don't worry if your good
or bad at it.

s.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numberswhat R the numbers exactly ??????

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What R the numbers?
>  
http://invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Sal Sunshine]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Jeffrey wrote:


Doug,
you make many good points about the dogmatism and the accepted bad
behaviors of the TM Movement. What I can't understand is why so many
people stay in a situation where there is so little respect and
concern for them as indidviduals, and where they are living in
poverty, or below the poverty line? And many of these people don't
go to the dome, either. What is the point of hanging out in
Fairfield, unless this is simply what they want for themselves? They
may complain, but are actually comfortable with being miserable, or
at least discontented. Why not stop complaining and just admit that
Fairfield is a disappointment, but that is exactly what they want?


But Fairfield is *not* a disappointment, Jeff, or else most of us  
wouldn't be here.  Fairfield is not the TMO, there is much more than  
that here, both spiritually and in just about any other way too.  I  
wouldn't consider leaving, and I haven't been in the domes for around  
14 years.  Your idea that the people who are here but not going to  
the domes are wallowing in misery is just plain dumb, no offense of  
course.  We're here because we love it, plain and simple.  And many  
if not most of us could live somewhere else if we wanted to.  We don't.


I sometimes think that when people such as yourself come in here and  
try and
tell those of us who are living here quite happily what a dump it is  
and how miserable we should be (or you'd be if it were you) that  
there's some hidden agenda or something.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip

> Child's play. Hours my friend, hours and days are the time of real  
> yogis.

And even eternity, Quote from MMY from the book, The Vedas: "About
immortality on the *physical level*, I happened to mention some
teaching in the Gita about a cessation of aging process.As the
metabolism is reduced.Simultaneously the body, the mind, the
entire functioning of the inner machinery comes to zero.

Cessation of activity results in cessation of the decaying process, as
long as we can be in that state, the process of decay ceases to
be.mental and physical planes come to the level of the spiritual
plane (prana) which has eternal life and knows no change.  MMY page
five  The Vedas.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[Vaj]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 8:56 PM, shempmcgurk wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:56 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:


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


What was the name of the alleged book?



Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy

about

the TMers getting those results, in particular because they

weren't

meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of

stress and

relaxation.

The issue of "wow, these neophytes got the same results as these

long-

time Buddhist practitioners" simply didn't arise in his mind.



He should rest assured that the research was most likely of a
questionable nature. I've seen similar things with early TM

research

which tried to compare itself to other forms of meditation and

were

based on the erroneous assumption that the parameters which were
beneficial for TMers should be the same for others. Another way

they

did this was to deliberately and consciously inflate baseline
measurement of metabolism. The result is TM actually looks
hypometabolic (a drop in metabolic rate, an indicator of deep

rest),

like you see in real yogis. However independent researchers found
they could not duplicate it and it turned out TM was actually not
hypometabolic at all.

Nowadays we know this is simply not true. There are other forms of
meditation which are quite remarkable in comparison to relaxation
response style meditation.




I have no doubt that 30-40 years of strenuous practise of all kinds
of yoga will produce incredible scientific results.

All the more remarkable for TM when you can take someone who's been
meditating for a few weeks and get similar results.


What would happen Shemp if I told you that the very basis and  
"reality" of the assertion 'they are people who meditated in some  
buddhist monastery for 30 or so years and our data is "better"' was  
one that was falsely presented?


Do you have any background in statistical analysis at the level of  
modern scientific inquiry? It might help if you have some theoretical  
and clinical background in 'anatomy and physiology'. Is Biochemistry a  
topic we could flap on in private?


Have you ever seen a c. 1960's cigarette company ad?

If you answered "yes" to any of the above then I suggest you may want  
to look closer and as widely as possible as to what you were told or  
might've been "fed".


My opinion? I would strongly wonder if you'd been duped.

(sorry for being so direct, but hey, you asked)

We really should examine more closely what you're sharing here. It's a  
real great point.


Please do continue to share what you heard or read!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numberswhat R the numbers exactly ??????

[WLeed3]

What R the numbers?
 
 
In a message dated 4/2/2008 8:57:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Doug,  
you make many good points about the dogmatism and the accepted bad  
behaviors of the TM Movement. What I can't understand is why so many  
people stay in a situation where there is so little respect and  
concern for them as indidviduals, and where they are living in  
poverty, or below the poverty line? And many of these people don't 
go  to the dome, either. What is the point of hanging out in 
Fairfield, unless  this is simply what they want for themselves? They 
may complain, but are  actually comfortable with being miserable, or 
at least discontented. Why  not stop complaining and just admit that 
Fairfield is a disappointment,  but that is exactly what they want? 
Jeff

--- In  FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
>

> 
> Certainly, A million a month, if 50% would  not get siphoned off to 
…
> Indian (?) pockets, could do a lot more  direct help here in the 
> community.  For various friends who have  made use of the Settle 
> support I see that it has been extremely  important to people 
here.  I 
> can only admire and say thanks  to Howard Settle and his wife for 
> thinking this way.
> 
>  That people hear that a `million a month' is being paid to 
> our  `professional' meditators and yet only some few hundred are 
> getting 6  or $700 a month only confirms a cynicism of bad feeling 
> towards the  TMmovement.  Those rough numbers do not multiply out 
> close to a  million bucks a month.  Where is the rest of it going?  
>  
> Again, it would help the community a lot now to have some 
>  transparency in how the money goes.  The numbers are about 
generally  
> accepted perceived bad behaviors of the TMmovement.  
>  
> Of course these are not the only problems in the community with  
the 
> numbers.  There is a constellation of things that relate  to it.  
> There is a dogmatism in the middle that makes it  essentially 
> difficult too to get the numbers needed.
> 
>  Jai Guru Dev, 
> -Doug in  FF
>





To  subscribe, send a message  to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to:  
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This  Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links







**Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
  (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv000316)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Jeffrey]

Doug, 
you make many good points about the dogmatism and the accepted bad 
behaviors of the TM Movement. What I can't understand is why so many 
people stay in a situation where there is so little respect and 
concern for them as indidviduals, and where they are living in 
poverty, or below the poverty line? And many of these people don't 
go to the dome, either. What is the point of hanging out in 
Fairfield, unless this is simply what they want for themselves? They 
may complain, but are actually comfortable with being miserable, or 
at least discontented. Why not stop complaining and just admit that 
Fairfield is a disappointment, but that is exactly what they want? 
Jeff

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
 
> 
> Certainly, A million a month, if 50% would not get siphoned off to 
…
> Indian (?) pockets, could do a lot more direct help here in the 
> community.  For various friends who have made use of the Settle 
> support I see that it has been extremely important to people 
here.  I 
> can only admire and say thanks to Howard Settle and his wife for 
> thinking this way.
> 
> That people hear that a `million a month' is being paid to 
> our `professional' meditators and yet only some few hundred are 
> getting 6 or $700 a month only confirms a cynicism of bad feeling 
> towards the TMmovement.  Those rough numbers do not multiply out 
> close to a million bucks a month.  Where is the rest of it going?  
> 
> Again, it would help the community a lot now to have some 
> transparency in how the money goes.  The numbers are about 
generally 
> accepted perceived bad behaviors of the TMmovement.  
> 
> Of course these are not the only problems in the community with 
the 
> numbers.  There is a constellation of things that relate to it.  
> There is a dogmatism in the middle that makes it essentially 
> difficult too to get the numbers needed.
> 
> Jai Guru Dev, 
> -Doug in FF
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:56 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >> What was the name of the alleged book?
> >
> >
> > Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy 
about
> > the TMers getting those results, in particular because they 
weren't
> > meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of 
stress and
> > relaxation.
> >
> > The issue of "wow, these neophytes got the same results as these 
long-
> > time Buddhist practitioners" simply didn't arise in his mind.
> 
> 
> He should rest assured that the research was most likely of a  
> questionable nature. I've seen similar things with early TM 
research  
> which tried to compare itself to other forms of meditation and 
were  
> based on the erroneous assumption that the parameters which were  
> beneficial for TMers should be the same for others. Another way 
they  
> did this was to deliberately and consciously inflate baseline  
> measurement of metabolism. The result is TM actually looks  
> hypometabolic (a drop in metabolic rate, an indicator of deep 
rest),  
> like you see in real yogis. However independent researchers found  
> they could not duplicate it and it turned out TM was actually not  
> hypometabolic at all.
> 
> Nowadays we know this is simply not true. There are other forms of  
> meditation which are quite remarkable in comparison to relaxation  
> response style meditation.
>


I have no doubt that 30-40 years of strenuous practise of all kinds 
of yoga will produce incredible scientific results.

All the more remarkable for TM when you can take someone who's been 
meditating for a few weeks and get similar results.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[sandiego108]

sure thing-- your music path sounds great also!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Jim, I really appreciate the suggestion but I probably 
> interface too much with the computer as it is.  It's not just the 
> musicality per se for me, and I don't contemplate performance, but 
> I'm interested in the whole process of learning an instrument; and 
to 
> paraphrase Brendan Perry of Dead Can Dance, being able to 
consciously 
> interact with a "dead" instrument to bring out not only its unique 
> aural properties, but to create the sound of consciousness by 
> collaborating with the instrument. 
> 
> And portability would be a fine thing, too.
> 
> We'll see.  Thanks again.
> 
> Marek
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > Curtis, Stu, Anyone,
> > > 
> > > It bugs me that I'm unable to make music and I'd like to 
learn.  
> > What 
> > > would be your recommendations re best instrument to learn?  
> > > 
> > > Marek
> > > 
> > > **
> > It depends what you want to get out of it-- if you want to 
perform 
> > for others, then you have to get an instrument and learn it. 
> > 
> > On the other hand, if you just want to compose songs to burn to 
CDs 
> > and play them for yourself and others, I've been getting a lot 
of 
> > fun out of a software program called Music Maker v12, by 
> > www.magix.com. The documentation is non-existent because it is a 
> > German program translated into English, but the cool thing is it 
> > uses a graphical interface which is pretty intuitive and easy to 
> > use. The music is created by assembling 2-4 second samples on 
> > something like a spreadsheet. Has multi track capability and 
each 
> > sample can be copied, pasted, and modified with fades and volume 
> > adjustments. 
> > 
> > I always wanted to compose the ulitmate electric guitar solo, 
which 
> > I posted yesterday here-- see my post, "Big Spring". Takes about 
10 
> > to 20 hours to put together a full tune. There are multiple 
genres 
> > to play with, and additional sound pools of samples are 
available.
> > 
> > Anyway, if you are looking for a musical outlet, this one is a 
> blast.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[Sal Sunshine]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:54 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:


It's not just the
musicality per se for me, and I don't contemplate performance, but
I'm interested in the whole process of learning an instrument; and to
paraphrase Brendan Perry of Dead Can Dance, being able to consciously
interact with a "dead" instrument to bring out not only its unique
aural properties, but to create the sound of consciousness by
collaborating with the instrument.

And portability would be a fine thing, too.


Marek,
How about the recorder?  It's definitely portable, not too difficult  
to learn the basics, and it's beautiful.  And most of them are not  
real expensive.  You could start out with that and then go on to  
something more complicated.


Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[Angela Mailander]

Well, Curtis is right, keep a harmonica in your car. 
Any idiot can learn to play a harmonica, though
bending the notes and doing good blues is a little
harder.  But if you can sing it, you can play it on a
harmonica.   


--- Marek Reavis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks, Jim, I really appreciate the suggestion but
> I probably 
> interface too much with the computer as it is.  It's
> not just the 
> musicality per se for me, and I don't contemplate
> performance, but 
> I'm interested in the whole process of learning an
> instrument; and to 
> paraphrase Brendan Perry of Dead Can Dance, being
> able to consciously 
> interact with a "dead" instrument to bring out not
> only its unique 
> aural properties, but to create the sound of
> consciousness by 
> collaborating with the instrument. 
> 
> And portability would be a fine thing, too.
> 
> We'll see.  Thanks again.
> 
> Marek
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek
> Reavis" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > Curtis, Stu, Anyone,
> > > 
> > > It bugs me that I'm unable to make music and I'd
> like to learn.  
> > What 
> > > would be your recommendations re best instrument
> to learn?  
> > > 
> > > Marek
> > > 
> > > **
> > It depends what you want to get out of it-- if you
> want to perform 
> > for others, then you have to get an instrument and
> learn it. 
> > 
> > On the other hand, if you just want to compose
> songs to burn to CDs 
> > and play them for yourself and others, I've been
> getting a lot of 
> > fun out of a software program called Music Maker
> v12, by 
> > www.magix.com. The documentation is non-existent
> because it is a 
> > German program translated into English, but the
> cool thing is it 
> > uses a graphical interface which is pretty
> intuitive and easy to 
> > use. The music is created by assembling 2-4 second
> samples on 
> > something like a spreadsheet. Has multi track
> capability and each 
> > sample can be copied, pasted, and modified with
> fades and volume 
> > adjustments. 
> > 
> > I always wanted to compose the ulitmate electric
> guitar solo, which 
> > I posted yesterday here-- see my post, "Big
> Spring". Takes about 10 
> > to 20 hours to put together a full tune. There are
> multiple genres 
> > to play with, and additional sound pools of
> samples are available.
> > 
> > Anyway, if you are looking for a musical outlet,
> this one is a 
> blast.
> >
> 
> 
> 


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[gullible fool]

> but Settle was
> apparently wondering why 
> people who are not required to be in the domes are
> not attending even 
> when it is fee-free 

My point is they are not attending for all the same
reasons that the ones who are forced to attend would
not attend if they could get away with it.

We used to have get-togethers at the Cambridge Center
that would end at program time and half the sidhas
would go home to do their program rather than join the
group. Even the ones who lived in Lancaster would do
that, and that's an hour drive.  
 
--- bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Many, if not most, dome-goers attend program only
> > because they are virtually forced to. For CCP, it
> > meant show up regularly or face a humiliating trip
> to
> > the course office to explain why you are not
> regular.
> > For students, it meant miss a minimal number of
> > programs or fail. I cn't imagine what the pressue
> on
> > Purusha has been historically...I just remember
> back
> > in the late 80s one Purushnik I knew from
> Cambridge
> > telling me he had to hop regularly in order to
> stay
> > on.
> > 
> 
> **
> 
> Yeah, it's really obnoxious to have those blissninny
> weasels 
> monitoring one's meditation, but Settle was
> apparently wondering why 
> people who are not required to be in the domes are
> not attending even 
> when it is fee-free, and that's because of factors
> other than 
> droolers breathing down your neck. 
> 
> 
> > --- bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> > > "dhamiltony2k5" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The numbers.  I got introduced to someone who
> had
> > > lunch with Howard 
> > > > Settle last week.  Howard is wondering, why
> are
> > > there so few 
> > > > Fairfield meditators in the domes?  
> > > > 
> > > > What would you tell Howard about this?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > ***
> > > 
> > > Since paying dome fees is now entirely
> voluntary,
> > > that can't be an 
> > > obstacle, but many people got used to not going
> to
> > > the dome when the 
> > > monthly fees were a problem. Many people also
> prefer
> > > to meditate in 
> > > the comfort of their Sthapathya Ved homes, and
> even
> > > those whose homes 
> > > are not OK in vastu probably feel it's less of a
> > > hassle just to 
> > > meditate at home, especially in the morning.
> There
> > > is also the 
> > > substantial problem of work schedules -- people
> on
> > > campus have work 
> > > schedules that work around dome times, but
> people in
> > > town have 
> > > different commitments. Also, for people with
> kids,
> > > child care can be 
> > > very expensive.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > To subscribe, send a message to:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > Or go to: 
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> > > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
>
__
> __
> > You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you
> one month of 
> Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  
> > http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 




  

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total 
Access, No Cost.  
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[Vaj]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:25 PM, sparaig wrote:



Actually, I've yet to see proof that they deliberately mislead
people about the hypo-
metabolic thing. In fact, it was MIU research by Brian Kesterson,
where he studied the
metabolic differences between people showing regular episodes of
transcendental
consciousness, including breath suspension, with meditators who were
NOT showing such
signs, that convinced the TM researchers that MMY was wrong:
metabolic rate and
samadhi are not correlated.



Actually yogic tradition is correct on this. See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMRYm0xLiw

His breath rate is around 1 breath a minute, sustained.

I already explained previously on the breath study and the reasons
it's insignificant.

Advanced meditators in or near samadhi will breath about once a
minute, but it appears they're not breathing at all as the rate is so
slow. In TM-based central apnea it's just a brief number of seconds.


as long as 70 seconds, yes...


Child's play. Hours my friend, hours and days are the time of real  
yogis.





The TM org did show they could cherry pick people for central apnea,
which occurs as the meditator goes through the various wake-sleep
style cycles found in TM, what's known as kevala-kumbhaka, the first
signs of breath suspension (but if the correct technique is not
applied, it never develops) where it briefly pauses (not suspends).
The only way to really master it is through the traditional yogic
methods which actually allow control of the carotid nerves. That will
automatically slow the heart and breathing follows. Without mastery  
of

these yoga techniques, practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist
meditation, breath retention cannot be fully mastered.

The actual authentic switch from external breathing to internal
breathing (suspension) is a marked switch and subjectively quite
remarkable when that occurs. That's also missing in TM lit. But of
course, you have to know what to look for.

As the breath slows way down, the amygdala will become active. This  
is
the sign scientists have observed. Both Lazar and Benson have  
observed

this. They seem to have emphasized instead the dramatic drop in
metabolic rate. Such science might be important since it could
eventually allow distant space travel.


Sounds great but what sign of an laterneted state of consciousness  
does this show?


Think of it as the much "later" cortical loops extending out to the  
cortex collapsing into the amygdala and then the whole hardware of  
human neurology "rebooting" and you'll have an idea of it.


The subconscious mind gets to completely rest. It cannot do that even  
in deep sleep.


It's important to reboot our hardware Lawson.








If TM researchers could show a meditator who could radically drop
their metabolic rates, then I'm sure everyone would want to hear  
about

it. But, as I indicated before, I'm not holding my breath on that
one :-). It's been decades and still nothing remarkable other than
relaxation effects which disappear mostly when compared to controls.



ANd the published research on this is found where?


Yogis generally don't publish "data". They do however pass on very,  
very precise instructions to their students. The neural pathways are  
however currently being mapped, so the "secret" material will  
eventually leak out to even science. After science has what it needs,  
maybe it will publish, maybe it will not. No one's selling anything  
after all, right?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[Marek Reavis]

Thanks, Jim, I really appreciate the suggestion but I probably 
interface too much with the computer as it is.  It's not just the 
musicality per se for me, and I don't contemplate performance, but 
I'm interested in the whole process of learning an instrument; and to 
paraphrase Brendan Perry of Dead Can Dance, being able to consciously 
interact with a "dead" instrument to bring out not only its unique 
aural properties, but to create the sound of consciousness by 
collaborating with the instrument. 

And portability would be a fine thing, too.

We'll see.  Thanks again.

Marek

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > Curtis, Stu, Anyone,
> > 
> > It bugs me that I'm unable to make music and I'd like to learn.  
> What 
> > would be your recommendations re best instrument to learn?  
> > 
> > Marek
> > 
> > **
> It depends what you want to get out of it-- if you want to perform 
> for others, then you have to get an instrument and learn it. 
> 
> On the other hand, if you just want to compose songs to burn to CDs 
> and play them for yourself and others, I've been getting a lot of 
> fun out of a software program called Music Maker v12, by 
> www.magix.com. The documentation is non-existent because it is a 
> German program translated into English, but the cool thing is it 
> uses a graphical interface which is pretty intuitive and easy to 
> use. The music is created by assembling 2-4 second samples on 
> something like a spreadsheet. Has multi track capability and each 
> sample can be copied, pasted, and modified with fades and volume 
> adjustments. 
> 
> I always wanted to compose the ulitmate electric guitar solo, which 
> I posted yesterday here-- see my post, "Big Spring". Takes about 10 
> to 20 hours to put together a full tune. There are multiple genres 
> to play with, and additional sound pools of samples are available.
> 
> Anyway, if you are looking for a musical outlet, this one is a 
blast.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> 
> > 
> > No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad 
data  
> > and exaggerated claims, >>
> 
> How many years have you been peddling this unsubstabtiated BS here 
Vaj, 
> and how much more of your life will you waste on this huge 
exaggeration 
> of yours? You sound like a broken record, that no-one listens to.
> 
> OffWorld
>
Reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons that knock on my 
door from time to time. I am sure Vaj has the same missionary zeal 
to convert us all to Buddhism, away from 'evil' TM. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How TM'ers are set adrift morally and ethically.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Allen deSomer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip

> I am of one mind with Carl Jung when he said in a film "I don't have 
> to believe in God - I know God".  You asked, Bill, so I feel 
> compelled to answer truthfully (no bragging intended).

So then, you've *awakened* the sleeping serpent? (called so because
this pranic force is entwined within the spinal muladara chakra
sleeping and protecting the spiritual fountainhead of all life. True
transcending entails awakening this kundalini power enlivening all of
the spiritual centers (chakras) in man.


> Your argument IMHO is based on the premise that science can never 
> equal religion, therefore, it follows that if MMY's teaching is a 
> science it will never equal religion. 

I think this is a true comment on your part, notice how all of the
Gods and Goddesses are slowing but surely making/made their way into
TM dogma, yes indeed, TM, in truth is a Religion, based on the eternal
Religion of the Vedas (Sanatana Dharma) as MMY stated himself in his
little booklet, "The Vedas"...I have quoted that already here.

Quote: "It would be exact to say that all the religions from times
immemorial are just different branches of the main trunk of the
*eternal religion* represented by the Vedas"

And further: "...this system of meditation is the greatest blessing of
the Vedas". MMY page four "The Vedas".



snip
>   
> > Are you aware that MMY recommends all eight limbs of 
> > Patanjali's Yoga be practiced "simultaneously" as specified 
> > in his Gita? (Appendix on Yoga) So where is the teaching of
> > the other limbs Allen? You know, Yama and Niyama which 
> > Maharishi Patanjali recommended as 2 of his 8
> > *means* to Yoga.  
> 
> 
> I would like to hear more on this point from someone more 
> knowledgable.  Thanks for brining it up.

Like who? That's why you're here Allen, to get the unvarnished truth,
it's for you to decide if it's true though. That's why I'm here, I
still meditate TM 2X20, started in 1968.
 


> As I stated above, I do not acknowledge that science and religion are 
> mutually exclusive, 

You could make the case (I have) that TM is not a Religion in the
context of Religion 'today', such as requiring faith, however in the
Latin, the word itself merely means to 'bind back' and clearly in the
purest definition of the word Religion, TM IS A RELIGION!


but I do acknowledge, appreciate, and thank you 
> for your congeniality.  
> -Allen
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

> 
> No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad data  
> and exaggerated claims, >>

How many years have you been peddling this unsubstabtiated BS here Vaj, 
and how much more of your life will you waste on this huge exaggeration 
of yours? You sound like a broken record, that no-one listens to.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" 
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I can find all sorts of quotes on all sorts of websites. 
> However, 
> > > the website CURRENTLY 
> > > > says:
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.improb.com/ig/
> > > > 
> > > > The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people 
> > > laugh, and then make them 
> > > > think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor 
> the 
> > > imaginative -- and spur 
> > > > people's interest in science, medicine, and technology.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Are you implying that I didn't get that quote from the organisers 
> of 
> > > the Igs? It's the one they have always used, but it isn't on the 
> > > front page anymore.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Did you ever read what Hagelin and company said in response to 
> > > Park's remarks?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yes.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > > Science is all about discussion to discover the truth. When you 
> > > stop looking after finding 
> > > > something you agree with, you're no longer part of the 
> scientific 
> > > debate.
> > > > 
> > > > Lawson
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I like that quote, I shall use that in future, but Sparaig it's 
> not 
> > > just the one critic. I've been reading about this for years, I 
> used 
> > > to work for the TMO, I've done WPA's I have honestly honestly 
> thought 
> > > about it more than just reading a few websites. Do I come over as 
> a 
> > > blinkered bigot?
> > >
> > 
> > Well, yes. When you quote something that the website doesn't say 
> any more as though it 
> > does in order to support your argument...
> > 
> > 
> > Lawson
> >
> 
> But it does still say it on there somewhere! I went there to check I 
> was right, it's part of their tagline, it's what they always say, 
> that's why me and Vaj posted it at the same time. Jesus.
>

It is a quoate from teh editor of the magaizine and creator of the award. Here 
is a more 
complete quote:

http://www.cascadiacon.org/Marc.htm

Marc Abrahams is known for a number of things (most of them not worthy of 
arrest…), but 
probably the two best-known things he has created are the Ig Nobel Prizes and 
his 
magazine, The Annals of Improbable Research. The Ig Nobel Prizes grow out of 
Marc’s 
belief that research ought to be recognized for being differentâ€"not just 
good. He says of 
the Ig Nobel Prizes, 

“Each year, ten Ig Nobel Prizes are awarded. The selection criterion is 
simple: the prizes 
are for ‘achievements that cannot or should not be reproduced.’ Examine 
that phrase 
carefullyâ€"it covers a lot of ground. It says nothing about whether a thing is 
good or bad, 
commendable or pernicious. I raise this matter of good or bad, because the 
world in 
general seems to enjoy classifying things as being either one or the other. The 
Ig Nobel 
Prizes aside, most prizes, in most places, for most purposes, are clearly 
designed to 
sanctify the goodness or badness of the recipients. Every year, of the ten new 
Ig Nobel 
Prizes, about half are awarded for things that most people would say are 
commendable, if 
perhaps goofy. The other half go for things that are, in some people's eyes, 
less 
commendable. All such judgments are entirely up to each observer. This makes 
the Prizes 
potentially useful in a very nice, and very powerful, way.”

[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 2:53 PM, sparaig wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:56 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
>  What was the name of the alleged book?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy  
> >>> about
> >>> the TMers getting those results, in particular because they weren't
> >>> meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of stress  
> >>> and
> >>> relaxation.
> >>>
> >>> The issue of "wow, these neophytes got the same results as these  
> >>> long-
> >>> time Buddhist practitioners" simply didn't arise in his mind.
> >>
> >>
> >> He should rest assured that the research was most likely of a
> >> questionable nature. I've seen similar things with early TM research
> >> which tried to compare itself to other forms of meditation and were
> >> based on the erroneous assumption that the parameters which were
> >> beneficial for TMers should be the same for others. Another way they
> >> did this was to deliberately and consciously inflate baseline
> >> measurement of metabolism. The result is TM actually looks
> >> hypometabolic (a drop in metabolic rate, an indicator of deep rest),
> >> like you see in real yogis. However independent researchers found
> >> they could not duplicate it and it turned out TM was actually not
> >> hypometabolic at all.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually, I've yet to see proof that they deliberately mislead  
> > people about the hypo-
> > metabolic thing. In fact, it was MIU research by Brian Kesterson,  
> > where he studied the
> > metabolic differences between people showing regular episodes of  
> > transcendental
> > consciousness, including breath suspension, with meditators who were  
> > NOT showing such
> > signs, that convinced the TM researchers that MMY was wrong:  
> > metabolic rate and
> > samadhi are not correlated.
> 
> 
> Actually yogic tradition is correct on this. See:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMRYm0xLiw
> 
> His breath rate is around 1 breath a minute, sustained.
> 
> I already explained previously on the breath study and the reasons  
> it's insignificant.
> 
> Advanced meditators in or near samadhi will breath about once a  
> minute, but it appears they're not breathing at all as the rate is so  
> slow. In TM-based central apnea it's just a brief number of seconds.  

as long as 70 seconds, yes...


> The TM org did show they could cherry pick people for central apnea,  
> which occurs as the meditator goes through the various wake-sleep  
> style cycles found in TM, what's known as kevala-kumbhaka, the first  
> signs of breath suspension (but if the correct technique is not  
> applied, it never develops) where it briefly pauses (not suspends).  
> The only way to really master it is through the traditional yogic  
> methods which actually allow control of the carotid nerves. That will  
> automatically slow the heart and breathing follows. Without mastery of  
> these yoga techniques, practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist  
> meditation, breath retention cannot be fully mastered.
> 
> The actual authentic switch from external breathing to internal  
> breathing (suspension) is a marked switch and subjectively quite  
> remarkable when that occurs. That's also missing in TM lit. But of  
> course, you have to know what to look for.
> 
> As the breath slows way down, the amygdala will become active. This is  
> the sign scientists have observed. Both Lazar and Benson have observed  
> this. They seem to have emphasized instead the dramatic drop in  
> metabolic rate. Such science might be important since it could  
> eventually allow distant space travel.

Sounds great but what sign of an laterneted state of consciousness does this 
show?


> 
> If TM researchers could show a meditator who could radically drop  
> their metabolic rates, then I'm sure everyone would want to hear about  
> it. But, as I indicated before, I'm not holding my breath on that  
> one :-). It's been decades and still nothing remarkable other than  
> relaxation effects which disappear mostly when compared to controls.
>

ANd the published research on this is found where?


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Advanced meditators in or near samadhi will breath about once a  
> minute, but it appears they're not breathing at all as the rate is so  
> slow. In TM-based central apnea it's just a brief number of seconds.  
> The TM org did show they could cherry pick people for central apnea,  
> which occurs as the meditator goes through the various wake-sleep  
> style cycles found in TM, what's known as kevala-kumbhaka, the first  
> signs of breath suspension (but if the correct technique is not  
> applied, it never develops) where it briefly pauses (not suspends).  
> The only way to really master it is through the traditional yogic  
> methods which actually allow control of the carotid nerves. That will  
> automatically slow the heart and breathing follows. Without mastery of  
> these yoga techniques, practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist  
> meditation, breath retention cannot be fully mastered.
> 
> The actual authentic switch from external breathing to internal  
> breathing (suspension) is a marked switch and subjectively quite  
> remarkable when that occurs. That's also missing in TM lit. But of  
> course, you have to know what to look for.
> 
> As the breath slows way down, the amygdala will become active. This is  
> the sign scientists have observed. Both Lazar and Benson have observed  
> this. They seem to have emphasized instead the dramatic drop in  
> metabolic rate. Such science might be important since it could  
> eventually allow distant space travel.
> 
> If TM researchers could show a meditator who could radically drop  
> their metabolic rates, then I'm sure everyone would want to hear about  
> it. But, as I indicated before, I'm not holding my breath on that  
> one :-). It's been decades and still nothing remarkable other than  
> relaxation effects which disappear mostly when compared to controls.

I like where you're going with this Vaj, true Samadhi or
(transcending, which most meditators, and other groups as well) seldom
achieve, is a very high ecstatic state certainly never overlooked or
forgotten, gads.  

At any rate, "Man does not live by bread alone but by every 'word'
that proceedeth out to the 'mouth of God'" Deuteronomy 8: 2-3

This is the prana (Astral/etheric) which sustains all life, which
Babaji lives on, it is the key to physical immortality, (if that would
be Gods will for you). Also called Kama.flows into the medulla
center and gives *life* to the entire body.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Oil Spill

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yep, Shemp, if Obama turns out to be what African Americans deeply
> need, then he's lying big time now, and yeah, if he lying now, I'm 
all
> for it.
> 
> BushCo murders 3rd worlders, what's so bad about a few lies in order
> to get the murdering to stop?
> 
> The fundies and the Repugs told every lie possible in order to get
> Bush into the oval office. Payback's a bitch, eh?



You're counting your chickens before they hatch.

The election hasn't happened yet and your candidate Barack "I would 
nuke Pakistan" Obama is still just a humble junior senator...


> 
> Edg
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > 
> > > I'm fingers-crossed that he's just doing what he's got to do 
until
> > > he's got true power.  But my hope has never been all that 
strong for
> > > his being able to fight the good fights.
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > Am I reading this correctly?  
> > 
> > It seems, then, Duveyoung, that you prefer that he lie to the 
voters, 
> > win election with a mandate he doesn't intend to honor, and then 
run 
> > the country in a different manner than he told us he would.
> > 
> > And as for the oil companies: what is your beef with them? Are 
they 
> > not doing a good job in providing you with the gasoline you need 
to 
> > power your SUV?
> > 
> > Except for a two-week period a few years ago when an oil line 
between 
> > Tucson and Phoenix broke, I have never had to wait to fill up my 
gas 
> > tank with their product whenever I have pulled up to a gas 
station.  
> > It's always available and conveniently available anywhere I 
travel.
> > 
> > They deserve the billions of dollars that they earn for providing 
> > such an excellent product at such a great price.
> > 
> > And, by the way, the oil companies themselves, relative to their 
size 
> > and operations, don't consume that much oil.
> > 
> > It is you and me and everyone else on this forum that guzzles all 
the 
> > gas.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How TM'ers are set adrift morally and ethically.

[Allen deSomer]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's "Lutes" and, doesn't he make my case? 


I don't think so, but I'll concede that Charlie did seem to endorse 
religion when he went on to say that MMY's teaching WAS his 
religion.  But he did not diss MMY's use of scientific language to 
describe Ultimate Truth.  To the contrary, he endorsed it on the 
grounds that the distinction between religion and science with regard 
to this subject is only a point of view.


> And you still haven't addressed the Religion issue!! or 
> have you adopted Religion in your life? and if so, which 
> one are you using to compliment your TM?


I am of one mind with Carl Jung when he said in a film "I don't have 
to believe in God - I know God".  You asked, Bill, so I feel 
compelled to answer truthfully (no bragging intended).


> Clearly you're showing your, shall we say ignorance, here.  Science
> can never and will never approach the scope of Religion, unless
> they're bridged and called Religious-Science. You have already
> conceded TM is not a Religion! TM without Religion is like a car
> without gasoline, IMO.


Your argument IMHO is based on the premise that science can never 
equal religion, therefore, it follows that if MMY's teaching is a 
science it will never equal religion.  I was drawn to comment on your 
post because this argument was settled in my mind many years ago when 
I heard Charlie's say something to the effect that Ultimate Truth is 
Ultimate Truth regardless of the path you take to it.  I'm sure 
Charlie Lutes is not the first person to make such a statement so I 
apologize for relying on him so heavily to illustrate the point.

  
> Are you aware that MMY recommends all eight limbs of 
> Patanjali's Yoga be practiced "simultaneously" as specified 
> in his Gita? (Appendix on Yoga) So where is the teaching of
> the other limbs Allen? You know, Yama and Niyama which 
> Maharishi Patanjali recommended as 2 of his 8
> *means* to Yoga.  


I would like to hear more on this point from someone more 
knowledgable.  Thanks for brining it up.

 
> > I would add that I believe that MMY's programs are too 
> > advanced for the average beginner.
> 
> Seems to me the Siddhis are offered in as few as 6 months! :-0.


Perhaps we agree on something!

 
> Thanks Allen, some things are just opinion.  How about you, 
> do you practice Religion or has TM become *Science in lieu
> of Religion*?  BillyG.


As I stated above, I do not acknowledge that science and religion are 
mutually exclusive, but I do acknowledge, appreciate, and thank you 
for your congeniality.  
-Allen

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Many, if not most, dome-goers attend program only
> because they are virtually forced to. For CCP, it
> meant show up regularly or face a humiliating trip to
> the course office to explain why you are not regular.
> For students, it meant miss a minimal number of
> programs or fail. I cn't imagine what the pressue on
> Purusha has been historically...I just remember back
> in the late 80s one Purushnik I knew from Cambridge
> telling me he had to hop regularly in order to stay
> on.
> 

**

Yeah, it's really obnoxious to have those blissninny weasels 
monitoring one's meditation, but Settle was apparently wondering why 
people who are not required to be in the domes are not attending even 
when it is fee-free, and that's because of factors other than 
droolers breathing down your neck. 


> --- bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> > "dhamiltony2k5" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > The numbers.  I got introduced to someone who had
> > lunch with Howard 
> > > Settle last week.  Howard is wondering, why are
> > there so few 
> > > Fairfield meditators in the domes?  
> > > 
> > > What would you tell Howard about this?
> > > 
> > 
> > ***
> > 
> > Since paying dome fees is now entirely voluntary,
> > that can't be an 
> > obstacle, but many people got used to not going to
> > the dome when the 
> > monthly fees were a problem. Many people also prefer
> > to meditate in 
> > the comfort of their Sthapathya Ved homes, and even
> > those whose homes 
> > are not OK in vastu probably feel it's less of a
> > hassle just to 
> > meditate at home, especially in the morning. There
> > is also the 
> > substantial problem of work schedules -- people on
> > campus have work 
> > schedules that work around dome times, but people in
> > town have 
> > different commitments. Also, for people with kids,
> > child care can be 
> > very expensive.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > Or go to: 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
__
__
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of 
Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  
> http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[curtisdeltablues]

> Curtis, Stu, Anyone,
> 
> It bugs me that I'm unable to make music and I'd like to learn.  What 
> would be your recommendations re best instrument to learn?  
> 
> Marek

My theory is that whatever instrument you notice most when a band
plays is a good place to start.  I fell in love with the sound of
certain instruments and that kept me going in the beginning.  I was
chasing a sound that I already heard in my mind.

That said, guitar is a very approachable instrument and you can get a
lot of satisfaction with just a few cords as well as growing into it
for the rest of your life.  Taking a few singing lessons will change
the way you perceive yourself.  Singing is the most expressive
instrument of all and people often cut themselves short.  We all CAN
sing, we just mostly had shitty musical educations.

I am a "start an instrument late in life" evangelist.  I didn't get
serious about guitar till I was about 30.  Two decades later and now
it puts bread on my table.

And lets not forget the wonder of percussion instruments!  You should
have at least one hand drum in your house to bang on.  Or if you
notice drum rhythms mostly in music, get an acoustic or electric set.  

And my best musical advise is keep your instruments out, especially
near the TV.  I rarely watch TV without an instrument in my hand
grooving in something I'm working on.  It actually helps to have
something else going on sometimes.  Just 15-20 minutes a day is all
you need to pick up an instrument.  Sound familiar!

Always keep a harmonica in your car.  Everyone should play harmonica
in traffic jams!  It helps your melodic sense in your other
instruments.  Once you learn to "bend" the notes like the Delta guys
it becomes a second voice box.

Go for it Marek!  What instrument draws you into the music you listen to?







> 
> **
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > My moms slowly working her way towards Alzheimers.  Right now her 
> memory
> > > is about 5 minutes long.  She still has her emotions and manages 
> to be
> > > happy, though that probably the anti-depressants talking.  Its 
> been
> > > toughest on my father who has devoted his life to her care now.
> > 
> > Sorry to hear that. Most of the patients I saw seemed childishly 
> happy
> > but a few were not.  The happy ones seemed like they would be much
> > easier to be around.  A local herb grower near DC wrote two books
> > about his own descent into Alzheimers: http://tinyurl.com/2yfgn6  He
> > is locally famous among gardeners because his greenhouse has dozens 
> of
> > variates from different countries of cooking herbs. Each year I 
> would
> > notice the changes and how his son runs the greenhouses.  
> > 
> > > 
> > > I have learned one important lesson from it.  That Ram Das slogan 
> Be
> > > Here Now ain't whats its cracked up to be.  Take away our memories
> > and > our ability to plan for the future and we become blithering
> > idiots.  At > best the lesson we take from "living in the moment" is
> > to appreciate our> marbles.
> > 
> > This represents a profound insight into one of most bogus qualities 
> of
> > the descriptions of "enlightenment."  That line on sand, water and 
> air
> > nonsense seems completely crazy to me now.  My life's meaning is in
> > the details and the relative qualities of my life. Glorifying an 
> empty
> > mind (even if you call it fullness) just doesn't interest me 
> anymore.
> >  Although I can enjoy short periods of meditation as a break, the
> > thought of sitting in that state for hours as I once did seems like
> > such a waste of time for me.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Andrew Sachs just wrote a book about this very thing, 
> Musicophilia.  He
> > > has an interesting theory about how a melody requires a person to 
> hear
> > > where it comes from and how its going to resolve.  It allows 
> patients
> > > with memory problems to take part in an emotional story as it 
> unfolds.
> > 
> > Thanks for the book, I'll check it out. This facility had a full 
> time
> > music therapist so they must feel it is important.  One interesting
> > thing was that they cleared out the room by singing a song about
> > "going home" and marching them all out.  It worked really well with
> > just a tinge of Orwellian nightmare for me to watch it! 
> > 
> > > 
> > > I think its very cool your playing at these facilities.  A buddy 
> and
> > I > get together weekly to play jazz standards and we always talk
> > about > playing the nursing homes but it never seems to develop. By
> > the time we > get the guts to play in front of old folks we will 
> have
> > to update our > repertoire.
> > 
> > It is one of the niche markets that I go after to make full time 
> music
> > possible.  One day I'll play at a blues club, the next an elementary
> > school or collage and then a nursing home.  Seeing so many types of
> > people relate to the Delta blues from their own experience is a real
> > tribute to the artists who created this style of music.
> > 
> > I hope you do find some tim

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Oil Spill

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Shemp wrote:
> > It seems, then, Duveyoung, that you prefer that he 
> > lie to the voters, win election with a mandate he 
> > doesn't intend to honor, and then run the country 
> > in a different manner than he told us he would.
> > 
> "John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps 
> as long as 100 years." - Barak Obama
> 
> But the non-partisan group Factcheck.org says Obama's 
> claim that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq is a 
> distortion to the point of "rank falsehood."
> 
> 'Cleveland Clinkers'
> FactCheck, February 27, 2008
> http://tinyurl.com/2cuvos
>

Hmmm...so a reasonable compromise is what? 25 years???

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> Curtis, Stu, Anyone,
> 
> It bugs me that I'm unable to make music and I'd like to learn.  
What 
> would be your recommendations re best instrument to learn?  
> 
> Marek
> 
> **
It depends what you want to get out of it-- if you want to perform 
for others, then you have to get an instrument and learn it. 

On the other hand, if you just want to compose songs to burn to CDs 
and play them for yourself and others, I've been getting a lot of 
fun out of a software program called Music Maker v12, by 
www.magix.com. The documentation is non-existent because it is a 
German program translated into English, but the cool thing is it 
uses a graphical interface which is pretty intuitive and easy to 
use. The music is created by assembling 2-4 second samples on 
something like a spreadsheet. Has multi track capability and each 
sample can be copied, pasted, and modified with fades and volume 
adjustments. 

I always wanted to compose the ulitmate electric guitar solo, which 
I posted yesterday here-- see my post, "Big Spring". Takes about 10 
to 20 hours to put together a full tune. There are multiple genres 
to play with, and additional sound pools of samples are available.

Anyway, if you are looking for a musical outlet, this one is a blast.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How TM'ers are set adrift morally and ethically.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Allen deSomer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> 
> This is my first post in this forum since I joined on Mar 17, 2008.  
> I'll introduce myself as someone who was a transfer student to MIU in 
> January of 1975 during the first year of MIU's presence in Fairfield.  
> I had a great time at MIU and I have many fond memories.  
> 
> I remember attending a speech given by Charlie Lutz and during the 
> question-answer session that followed, your issue of science versus 
> religion was raised.  A Bahá'í follower presented his faith as being 
> complementary to the goals of the TMO because his Bahá'í faith was a 
> religion whereas MMY's teaching was a science.  Charlie responded in 
> his typical larger-than-life way by stating his opinion that MMY would 
> have packaged his teaching as a religion if he believed the world would 
> accept it more readily that way. 

It's "Lutes" and, doesn't he make my case? And you still haven't
addressed the Religion issue!! or have you adopted Religion in your
life? and if so, which one are you using to compliment your TM?



 I bring this up with you here just to 
> illustrate how old your argument is.  For many years the answer has 
> been that knowledge is knowledge & the distinction between religion 
> versus science is irrelevant regarding (to use your phrase) "the tried 
> and true methods of Vedic culture".

Clearly you're showing your, shall we say ignorance, here.  Science
can never and will never approach the scope of Religion, unless
they're bridged and called Religious-Science. You have already
conceded TM is not a Religion! TM without Religion is like a car
without gasoline, IMO.
 
> I tend to disagree with your statement that "[MMY] compromised, and 
> devised 'Yoga-lite for modernity'".  The phrase "Highest First" has 
> been MMY's motto for many years.  Not only did MMY believe that his 
> teaching was not compromised, but he also believed it to be the highest 
> teaching.

Are you aware that MMY recommends all eight limbs of Patanjali's Yoga
be practiced "simultaneously" as specified in his Gita? (Appendix on
Yoga) So where is the teaching of the other limbs Allen? You know,
Yama and Niyama which Maharishi Patanjali recommended as 2 of his 8
*means* to Yoga.  

  I would add that I believe that MMY's programs are too 
> advanced for the average beginner.

Seems to me the Siddhis are offered in as few as 6 months! :-0.

> Perhaps you differ from MMY on many levels, but I don't think you have 
> made a great case for your views.  For the record: I realize that I 
> have opened myself up for criticism by using Charlie Lutz as a source.  
> Everyone who wishes to pounce on that one may do so for their own 
> personal satisfaction LOL!
> 
> Your post was intersting regardless of whether I agree.  Congrats for 
> that.

Thanks Allen, some things are just opinion.  How about you, do you
practice Religion or has TM become *Science in lieu of Religion*?  BillyG.
 
> Cheers,
> Allen

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[hugheshugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" 
 wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > Again, did you read John's math-laden papers on the subject? 
> > They're philosophical in 
> > > nature, rather than scientific, but the insights he gained from 
his 
> > philisophical discussions 
> > > with MMY led to the initial modifications of FLipped SU(5) 
which 
> > were the basis of his fame 
> > > and at least partly the basis of the fame of Nanapolous and 
Ellis 
> > as well.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Lawson
> > >
> > 
> > Now that is interesting, the usual way he is presented is that he 
met 
> > MMY and his whole career fell apart because everyone thought he 
had 
> > flipped (no pun).
> 
> I already posted his SLAC blibliography. John Started TM when he 
was 17 while recovering 
> from a sking incident. According to people who knew him in college, 
he was already  
> discussing how things like levitation might work on a QM level.
> 
> Now, in grad and post-grad school, he published some well-respected 
papers on physics 
> (top-cite 500+ according to SLAC) but his most important work,  
Flipped (SU) 5, didn't get 
> published until AFTER he met with MMY in Switzerland. According to 
an interview John 
> gave 20 years ago, he went back to his desk and started going 
through various GUT 
> studies trying to see which fit most closely with MMY's exposition 
on Vedic Cosmology. He 
> found that FLipped SU(5) was the closested philosophical fit.
> 
> After some tweaking to make it fit even closer to MMY's theories, 
he realized that the 
> modifications actually made the theory *stronger* from a Western 
scientific perspective, 
> and faxed John Ellis at CERN the initial tweak with the note "Isn't 
this the sweetest little 
> theory." Ellis and John Haglein had already published research with 
Nanapolous when John 
> and Ellis worked for Nanopolous in grad school, so Ellis contacted 
him directly with john's 
> fax and the 3 started a decade-long collaboration on FLipped SU(5) 
and related issues.
> 
> > 
> > It's undeniable that he went too far for most people with his on 
C as 
> > UF the chief complaint being that he twisted physics to fit
> 
> His layman's discussions certainly go out on a limb, but his two 
initial papers on the 
> subject, while philosophical in nature, don't include anything 
outside the mainstream of 
> Physics EXCEPT to note the correlations between Vedic Cosmology and 
Quantum field 
> theories (which is crazy enough in most PHysicists eyes).
> 
> Certainly, I've never heard anyone claim that the math and analysis 
presented in those two 
> papers is wrong, only that the premise (and conclusion) is 
completely insane simply 
> because *it is* --the people who can read the papers all the way 
through generally don't. 
> Ellis and Nanopolous likely DID read them all the way through 
because John published 
> them at the start of their collaboration, but they continued 
working with him for another 
> 5-10 years after he published those two papers.
> 
> One is available online. I've been trying for years to get John to 
make the other available 
> but my emails are ignored. Typical TM movement crap. They ignore my 
suggestion to put models of the TM building projects in Second LIfe 
too. They ignored my calls to set up 
> internet presence at the start of John's second Presidential 
campaign also. Typical TM (but 
> also typical political attitude from that period for everyone).
> 
> 
> 33) Is Consciousness The Unified Field? (A Field Theorist's 
Perspective). 
> John S. Hagelin (Maharishi U. of Management) . RX-1131 (MAHARISHI-
INT'L), MIU-THP-
> 86-015, (Received Aug 1986). 115pp. 
> Published in Mod.Sci. & Vedic Sci.1: 29, 1986.
> 
> 60) Restructuring Physics From Its Foundation In Light Of 
Maharishi's Vedic Science.
> John S. Hagelin (Maharishi U. of Management) . MIU-THP-89-48, Sep 
1989. 125pp.
> 
> scanned version:
> 
> http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198912227
> 
> 
> John's SLACk bibliography:
> 
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?
> rawcmd=FIND+A+HAGELIN&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=ds
> 
> 
> Lawson
> 
> 

Thank you for the info and links I shall have a good read at my 
leisure.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[hugheshugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
> > 
> > Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?
> 
> You barged into the bank and shouted,
> "I've got a mind and I'm not afraid 
> to use it?"  :-)
> 
> > > The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo
> > > claim they are. 
> > 
> > My "claim" was a quote from their website; 
> > 
> > "The Ig Nobel Ceremony, now in its fourth year, honors people 
whose
> > achievements cannot or should not be reproduced. Beginning with 
this
> > year's ceremony on October 6, the Ig Nobels will be produced 
jointly 
> > by The MIT Museum and The Annals of Improbable Research."
> > 
> > Apology to the usual address please.
> 
> Now you've done it. Didn't you read the sign?
> 
> http://www.photobasement.com/wp-
content/uploads/2008/03/ominouswarning.jpg
> 
> or 
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/2pryy7
> 
> :-)
>

Now that made me laugh!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[hugheshugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" 
 wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" 
> >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > I can find all sorts of quotes on all sorts of websites. 
However, 
> > the website CURRENTLY 
> > > says:
> > > 
> > > http://www.improb.com/ig/
> > > 
> > > The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people 
> > laugh, and then make them 
> > > think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor 
the 
> > imaginative -- and spur 
> > > people's interest in science, medicine, and technology.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Are you implying that I didn't get that quote from the organisers 
of 
> > the Igs? It's the one they have always used, but it isn't on the 
> > front page anymore.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Did you ever read what Hagelin and company said in response to 
> > Park's remarks?
> > 
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> >  
> > > Science is all about discussion to discover the truth. When you 
> > stop looking after finding 
> > > something you agree with, you're no longer part of the 
scientific 
> > debate.
> > > 
> > > Lawson
> > >
> > 
> > I like that quote, I shall use that in future, but Sparaig it's 
not 
> > just the one critic. I've been reading about this for years, I 
used 
> > to work for the TMO, I've done WPA's I have honestly honestly 
thought 
> > about it more than just reading a few websites. Do I come over as 
a 
> > blinkered bigot?
> >
> 
> Well, yes. When you quote something that the website doesn't say 
any more as though it 
> does in order to support your argument...
> 
> 
> Lawson
>

But it does still say it on there somewhere! I went there to check I 
was right, it's part of their tagline, it's what they always say, 
that's why me and Vaj posted it at the same time. Jesus.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How TM'ers are set adrift morally and ethically.

[Allen deSomer]

Hi Bill,

This is my first post in this forum since I joined on Mar 17, 2008.  
I'll introduce myself as someone who was a transfer student to MIU in 
January of 1975 during the first year of MIU's presence in Fairfield.  
I had a great time at MIU and I have many fond memories.  

I remember attending a speech given by Charlie Lutz and during the 
question-answer session that followed, your issue of science versus 
religion was raised.  A Bahá'í follower presented his faith as being 
complementary to the goals of the TMO because his Bahá'í faith was a 
religion whereas MMY's teaching was a science.  Charlie responded in 
his typical larger-than-life way by stating his opinion that MMY would 
have packaged his teaching as a religion if he believed the world would 
accept it more readily that way.  I bring this up with you here just to 
illustrate how old your argument is.  For many years the answer has 
been that knowledge is knowledge & the distinction between religion 
versus science is irrelevant regarding (to use your phrase) "the tried 
and true methods of Vedic culture".

I tend to disagree with your statement that "[MMY] compromised, and 
devised 'Yoga-lite for modernity'".  The phrase "Highest First" has 
been MMY's motto for many years.  Not only did MMY believe that his 
teaching was not compromised, but he also believed it to be the highest 
teaching.  I would add that I believe that MMY's programs are too 
advanced for the average beginner.

Perhaps you differ from MMY on many levels, but I don't think you have 
made a great case for your views.  For the record: I realize that I 
have opened myself up for criticism by using Charlie Lutz as a source.  
Everyone who wishes to pounce on that one may do so for their own 
personal satisfaction LOL!

Your post was intersting regardless of whether I agree.  Congrats for 
that.

Cheers,
Allen

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Oil Spill

[Richard J. Williams]

Shemp wrote:
> It seems, then, Duveyoung, that you prefer that he 
> lie to the voters, win election with a mandate he 
> doesn't intend to honor, and then run the country 
> in a different manner than he told us he would.
> 
"John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps 
as long as 100 years." - Barak Obama

But the non-partisan group Factcheck.org says Obama's 
claim that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq is a 
distortion to the point of "rank falsehood."

'Cleveland Clinkers'
FactCheck, February 27, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/2cuvos

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: DOME ANNOUNCEMENTS--Special Dome Event Tonight

[Sal Sunshine]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 3:06 PM, george_deforest wrote:


so, did anyone go to this?


No.


what did these guys have to say, anything big?


Yes, george, the revolution is upon us.  Just in case you were  
wondering. :)


Hey, BTW, saw your name up on the new Argiro Student Center donations  
board.  Way to go.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Oil Spill

[Richard J. Williams]

Duveyoung wrote:
> GAWD I hate it  -- do you think that Obama deals
> with the devil or is he a devil wannabe?
> 
"In short, pretty much every policy that the Democrats 
have pursued for the last three decades has contributed 
to the shortage of oil, and resulting high price of 
gasoline. For the Democrats to pretend that high prices 
are the fault of the oil companies--which, unlike the 
Democrats, actually go to great lengths to bring energy 
to American consumers--is beyond hypocrisy."

Read more:

'Incoherence'
Posted by John Hindraker:
Powerline, April 2, 2007
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020186.php

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[Vaj]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 2:53 PM, sparaig wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:56 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:


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


What was the name of the alleged book?



Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy  
about

the TMers getting those results, in particular because they weren't
meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of stress  
and

relaxation.

The issue of "wow, these neophytes got the same results as these  
long-

time Buddhist practitioners" simply didn't arise in his mind.



He should rest assured that the research was most likely of a
questionable nature. I've seen similar things with early TM research
which tried to compare itself to other forms of meditation and were
based on the erroneous assumption that the parameters which were
beneficial for TMers should be the same for others. Another way they
did this was to deliberately and consciously inflate baseline
measurement of metabolism. The result is TM actually looks
hypometabolic (a drop in metabolic rate, an indicator of deep rest),
like you see in real yogis. However independent researchers found
they could not duplicate it and it turned out TM was actually not
hypometabolic at all.





Actually, I've yet to see proof that they deliberately mislead  
people about the hypo-
metabolic thing. In fact, it was MIU research by Brian Kesterson,  
where he studied the
metabolic differences between people showing regular episodes of  
transcendental
consciousness, including breath suspension, with meditators who were  
NOT showing such
signs, that convinced the TM researchers that MMY was wrong:  
metabolic rate and

samadhi are not correlated.



Actually yogic tradition is correct on this. See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMRYm0xLiw

His breath rate is around 1 breath a minute, sustained.

I already explained previously on the breath study and the reasons  
it's insignificant.


Advanced meditators in or near samadhi will breath about once a  
minute, but it appears they're not breathing at all as the rate is so  
slow. In TM-based central apnea it's just a brief number of seconds.  
The TM org did show they could cherry pick people for central apnea,  
which occurs as the meditator goes through the various wake-sleep  
style cycles found in TM, what's known as kevala-kumbhaka, the first  
signs of breath suspension (but if the correct technique is not  
applied, it never develops) where it briefly pauses (not suspends).  
The only way to really master it is through the traditional yogic  
methods which actually allow control of the carotid nerves. That will  
automatically slow the heart and breathing follows. Without mastery of  
these yoga techniques, practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist  
meditation, breath retention cannot be fully mastered.


The actual authentic switch from external breathing to internal  
breathing (suspension) is a marked switch and subjectively quite  
remarkable when that occurs. That's also missing in TM lit. But of  
course, you have to know what to look for.


As the breath slows way down, the amygdala will become active. This is  
the sign scientists have observed. Both Lazar and Benson have observed  
this. They seem to have emphasized instead the dramatic drop in  
metabolic rate. Such science might be important since it could  
eventually allow distant space travel.


If TM researchers could show a meditator who could radically drop  
their metabolic rates, then I'm sure everyone would want to hear about  
it. But, as I indicated before, I'm not holding my breath on that  
one :-). It's been decades and still nothing remarkable other than  
relaxation effects which disappear mostly when compared to controls.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: DOME ANNOUNCEMENTS--Special Dome Event Tonight

[george_deforest]

so, did anyone go to this?
what did these guys have to say, anything big?


> In a message dated 4/1/2008 4:13:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Everyone is invited to  come to the Maharishi Patanjali Golden Dome of
> Pure Knowledge Tuesday  evening at 8:15 to welcome and honor Dr.
Benjamin
> Feldman and Dr. Prakash  Shrivastava on their historic visit to
Maharishi
> Vedic City and Maharishi  University of Management. They will be
> introduced by Raja Wynne of  Maharishi Vedic City.
> 
> Dr. Feldman, Kuberaji, is the Minister of Finance  and Planning of the
> Global Country of World Peace and a member of the  Executive
Committee of
> the Brahmanand Saraswati Trust. Dr. Shrivastava is  Chairman of the
> Central Bank of the Global Country of World Peace and  founding trustee
> of Maharishi Veda Vigyan Vidya Peetham Trust and has been  responsible
> for the training of tens of thousands of Maharishi Vedic  Pandits in
over
> 150 different locations in India.
> 
> Drs. Feldman and  Shrivastava, global leaders of Maharishi's world-wide
> movement, will be  giving news and inspiration from around the world. No
> one will want to miss  this historic event.
> 
> Jai Guru Dev

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Again, did you read John's math-laden papers on the subject? 
> They're philosophical in 
> > nature, rather than scientific, but the insights he gained from his 
> philisophical discussions 
> > with MMY led to the initial modifications of FLipped SU(5) which 
> were the basis of his fame 
> > and at least partly the basis of the fame of Nanapolous and Ellis 
> as well.
> > 
> > 
> > Lawson
> >
> 
> Now that is interesting, the usual way he is presented is that he met 
> MMY and his whole career fell apart because everyone thought he had 
> flipped (no pun).

I already posted his SLAC blibliography. John Started TM when he was 17 while 
recovering 
from a sking incident. According to people who knew him in college, he was 
already  
discussing how things like levitation might work on a QM level.

Now, in grad and post-grad school, he published some well-respected papers on 
physics 
(top-cite 500+ according to SLAC) but his most important work,  Flipped (SU) 5, 
didn't get 
published until AFTER he met with MMY in Switzerland. According to an interview 
John 
gave 20 years ago, he went back to his desk and started going through various 
GUT 
studies trying to see which fit most closely with MMY's exposition on Vedic 
Cosmology. He 
found that FLipped SU(5) was the closested philosophical fit.

After some tweaking to make it fit even closer to MMY's theories, he realized 
that the 
modifications actually made the theory *stronger* from a Western scientific 
perspective, 
and faxed John Ellis at CERN the initial tweak with the note "Isn't this the 
sweetest little 
theory." Ellis and John Haglein had already published research with Nanapolous 
when John 
and Ellis worked for Nanopolous in grad school, so Ellis contacted him directly 
with john's 
fax and the 3 started a decade-long collaboration on FLipped SU(5) and related 
issues.

> 
> It's undeniable that he went too far for most people with his on C as 
> UF the chief complaint being that he twisted physics to fit

His layman's discussions certainly go out on a limb, but his two initial papers 
on the 
subject, while philosophical in nature, don't include anything outside the 
mainstream of 
Physics EXCEPT to note the correlations between Vedic Cosmology and Quantum 
field 
theories (which is crazy enough in most PHysicists eyes).

Certainly, I've never heard anyone claim that the math and analysis presented 
in those two 
papers is wrong, only that the premise (and conclusion) is completely insane 
simply 
because *it is* --the people who can read the papers all the way through 
generally don't. 
Ellis and Nanopolous likely DID read them all the way through because John 
published 
them at the start of their collaboration, but they continued working with him 
for another 
5-10 years after he published those two papers.

One is available online. I've been trying for years to get John to make the 
other available 
but my emails are ignored. Typical TM movement crap. They ignore my suggestion 
to put models of the TM building projects in Second LIfe too. They ignored my 
calls to set up 
internet presence at the start of John's second Presidential campaign also. 
Typical TM (but 
also typical political attitude from that period for everyone).


33) Is Consciousness The Unified Field? (A Field Theorist's Perspective). 
John S. Hagelin (Maharishi U. of Management) . RX-1131 (MAHARISHI-INT'L), 
MIU-THP-
86-015, (Received Aug 1986). 115pp. 
Published in Mod.Sci. & Vedic Sci.1: 29, 1986.

60) Restructuring Physics From Its Foundation In Light Of Maharishi's Vedic 
Science.
John S. Hagelin (Maharishi U. of Management) . MIU-THP-89-48, Sep 1989. 125pp.

scanned version:

http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198912227


John's SLACk bibliography:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?
rawcmd=FIND+A+HAGELIN&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=ds


Lawson





, I shall 
> have to check that though and find a reference as this is the most 
> important bit about the discussion I think, and it's bound to be a 
> bit contentious. But til then, don't go all "Judy" on me and assume 
> I'm picking fights for nothing.
> 
> PS JH sytarted a hi-fi company called Enlightened Audio Design, I've 
> heard some, it's rather good.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
> 
> Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?

You barged into the bank and shouted,
"I've got a mind and I'm not afraid 
to use it?"  :-)

> > The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo
> > claim they are. 
> 
> My "claim" was a quote from their website; 
> 
> "The Ig Nobel Ceremony, now in its fourth year, honors people whose
> achievements cannot or should not be reproduced. Beginning with this
> year's ceremony on October 6, the Ig Nobels will be produced jointly 
> by The MIT Museum and The Annals of Improbable Research."
> 
> Apology to the usual address please.

Now you've done it. Didn't you read the sign?

http://www.photobasement.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/ominouswarning.jpg

or 

http://tinyurl.com/2pryy7

:-)

[FairfieldLife] States Sue EPA Over Global Warming

[Bhairitu]

Yup even Shemp's state is suing:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23919234/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" 
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > I can find all sorts of quotes on all sorts of websites. However, 
> the website CURRENTLY 
> > says:
> > 
> > http://www.improb.com/ig/
> > 
> > The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people 
> laugh, and then make them 
> > think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the 
> imaginative -- and spur 
> > people's interest in science, medicine, and technology.
> > 
> 
> 
> Are you implying that I didn't get that quote from the organisers of 
> the Igs? It's the one they have always used, but it isn't on the 
> front page anymore.
> 
> > 
> > Did you ever read what Hagelin and company said in response to 
> Park's remarks?
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
>  
> > Science is all about discussion to discover the truth. When you 
> stop looking after finding 
> > something you agree with, you're no longer part of the scientific 
> debate.
> > 
> > Lawson
> >
> 
> I like that quote, I shall use that in future, but Sparaig it's not 
> just the one critic. I've been reading about this for years, I used 
> to work for the TMO, I've done WPA's I have honestly honestly thought 
> about it more than just reading a few websites. Do I come over as a 
> blinkered bigot?
>

Well, yes. When you quote something that the website doesn't say any more as 
though it 
does in order to support your argument...


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for?
> 
> 
> It's for research that's considered laughable and "that cannot, or  
> should not, be reproduced."
> 
> Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of  
> pseudoscience.
>

Actually, the current website says:

http://www.improb.com/ig/

The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then 
make them 
think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative 
-- and spur 
people's interest in science, medicine, and technology.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:29 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote:
> >>
[...]
> >> As in previous desperate attempts to somehow make a state of
> >> the art paper look bad, this one falls on all but other TB ears
> >> as BS Judy. In no decently written papers of this kind have I
> >> seen wanton referral to research that is not directly linked to
> >> something included in the paper.
> >
> > No, this is yet more disingenuity.
> >
> > One more time: The Buddhist researchers purport
> > to have evaluated TM research, but they ignored
> > the two most recent decades' worth of published
> > studies.
> >
> > That's absurd on its face. Has nothing to do with
> > "APA form," as you know, or any of the other red
> > herrings and flimflam you've tried to throw in.
> >
> > It would have made sense for them to have ignored
> > the *earier* studies and focused entirely on the
> > most recent ones that dealt with the topics they
> > chose to discuss.
> 
> You clearly have little background in or understanding of science.  
> I'm sorry Judy, you're TB faith in TM research, all it tells me is  
> that you believe what you're told, with little critical comprehension  
> or understanding. Nothing any of of us can say or do will shake your  
> belief in the bible of McMeditation "research", so I won't pretend to  
> be surprised at your wind-up doll retorts.
> 
> But thanks anyway. :-)
>

But, the section of the paper that examines TM research was in fact, examining 
TM 
research as the topic of that section, so to ignore the 20 years most recent 
research in the 
section examining TM research IS to ignore 20 years of research on the topic of 
that 
section...


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[hugheshugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" 
 wrote:

> Again, did you read John's math-laden papers on the subject? 
They're philosophical in 
> nature, rather than scientific, but the insights he gained from his 
philisophical discussions 
> with MMY led to the initial modifications of FLipped SU(5) which 
were the basis of his fame 
> and at least partly the basis of the fame of Nanapolous and Ellis 
as well.
> 
> 
> Lawson
>

Now that is interesting, the usual way he is presented is that he met 
MMY and his whole career fell apart because everyone thought he had 
flipped (no pun).

It's undeniable that he went too far for most people with his on C as 
UF the chief complaint being that he twisted physics to fit, I shall 
have to check that though and find a reference as this is the most 
important bit about the discussion I think, and it's bound to be a 
bit contentious. But til then, don't go all "Judy" on me and assume 
I'm picking fights for nothing.

PS JH sytarted a hi-fi company called Enlightened Audio Design, I've 
heard some, it's rather good.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:53 AM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander  
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that
> >> do show methodologies and results they would accept
> >> for any meditation practice?
> >
> >
> > How could we answer that, since we're not the researchers in question?
> >
> >
> > However, there are quite a few studies out there that were not  
> > examined...
> >
> >
> > For example, in the Cambridge Handbook meditation section, studies  
> > between 1986 and
> > 2004 on TM were cited, even though that was the period when the  
> > first studies on the
> > correlation of breath suspension and samadhi were published
> 
> Unfortunately none of these meet the criteria for samadhi. Maybe they  
> should've called it "Maharishi samadhi"? :-) 

They call it episodes of transcendental consciousness or pure consciousness, 
and 
researchers (not TMers) have found the research compelling enough to refer to 
the state 
as "PCE"

TM does not range  
> outside of normal human circadian rhythms according to independent  
> researchers. And the apnea "study" is so biased and non-randomized  
> that I doubt a real scientist would even consider it "science".
> 

Not all research need be randomized. If you're looking at claims of the 
existence of a 
state, you lok for markers of that state in people who claim the state occurs, 
NOT in the 
general population. Once you find markers for the state, you can do randomized 
studies, 
but until you find the markers, there's no point.

Now, in fact, randomized studies on people who practice TM HAVE been done 
examining 
the occurance/non-occurance of those *previously established markers*, but the 
initial 
Kesterson study wasn't randomized because it wasn't that kind of study.

ANy more than a study on monks with 20,000 hours of meditation experience is a 
randomized study...


> The fact is, there no examples in TM lit. of samadhi at all, just  
> theoretical conclusions they expect us to accept as beliefs.
> 

Well, technically, they are physiological markers of self-reports of 
transcendental 
consciousness. That these physiological markers don't fit what YOU consider to 
be "real 
samadhi" is a topic all its own. Find modern studies done with modern equipment 
in laboratory settings of a dozen or two people showing what YOU consider to be 
the right 
physiological markers for samadhi.


> In order to do so they'd have to show that they had attained samadhi,  
> in which case they'd be able to go into samadhi at will, for whatever  
> length of time they chose and be unperturbed by their environment.  
> This level of attainment is not present in even long term TMers.  
> After 30+ years, it's seriously doubtful they ever will.
> 

Well, the 2004 study  and its sister study on the same subjects was done on 
people 
reporting 24 hour a day witnessing for at least one year. Obviously, since they 
are already 
IN what the reserachers considered CC, expecting them to "enter it at will" is 
a strange 
concept.

Now, if you're looking for someone who shows breath suspension non-stop for a 
full 20 
minute meditation period, no-one has ever shown that in TM research.

The closest is a woman who learned TM about 50 years ago when she was a kid 
(Helen 
Olson I suspect) who showed breath suspension periods that in total, lasted 
about 60 
percent of a 10 minute meditation session, but they were only a minute or so at 
a time.




> That's not of course to say that TM isn't relaxing--it is. And  
> relaxing is good for most people.
>


Tm isn't always relaxing.



Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, about that last truncated message that got sent
> > by accident before I finished typing it.
> >
> > So, what I was gonna say was "Well, then, I'd like an
> > explanation for why they would just ignore twenty
> > years worth of research.  If true, that is suspect on
> > the face of it.
> >
> > Whaddaya say, Vaj?
> 
> 
> There's no evidence that they ignored anything.

They didn't cite a single study on TM publsihed betweeen 1986 and 2004 n the 
section 
where they discuss TM and the 2004 study they mention, they dismiss as not 
being based 
on phsyiological research, which is of coursed, true, since the 2004 study was 
a 
psychological study done as a followup on a previous physiological study.


 All of the claims  
> they make covering meditation research have citations backing their  
> claims. So unless there's some specific area that is missing a valid,  
> scientific claim, there's no need for more citations. This is just  
> another Judy red herring.
> 

Except they don't consider physiological research done on TM after 1986 when 
they 
dismiss TM claims made in 2004.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[hugheshugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" 
 wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > >
> > 
> > > 
> > > (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
> > 
> > 
> > Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?



> 
> I can find all sorts of quotes on all sorts of websites. However, 
the website CURRENTLY 
> says:
> 
> http://www.improb.com/ig/
> 
> The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people 
laugh, and then make them 
> think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the 
imaginative -- and spur 
> people's interest in science, medicine, and technology.
> 


Are you implying that I didn't get that quote from the organisers of 
the Igs? It's the one they have always used, but it isn't on the 
front page anymore.

> 
> Did you ever read what Hagelin and company said in response to 
Park's remarks?


Yes.

 
> Science is all about discussion to discover the truth. When you 
stop looking after finding 
> something you agree with, you're no longer part of the scientific 
debate.
> 
> Lawson
>

I like that quote, I shall use that in future, but Sparaig it's not 
just the one critic. I've been reading about this for years, I used 
to work for the TMO, I've done WPA's I have honestly honestly thought 
about it more than just reading a few websites. Do I come over as a 
blinkered bigot? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:44 AM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had
> >>> assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well
> >>> established. But I came across this 2007 independent "review" which
> >>> doesn't appear to rate any of the meditation research.. (same one
> >>> cited on the programme?):
> >>> http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf
> >>> Surely this is just too negative?
> >>
> >>
> >> Nope, it's actually an excellent review of the science used in
> >> meditation research and just how scientific it is.
> >>
> >
> > Of course it is...
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >> But really, much of what's touted by TM researchers was disproved way
> >> back in the 80's. In some cases the TM researchers didn't even bother
> >> to respond when independent researchers pointed out the errors in
> >> their research! If anything, TMO-based meditation research is a good
> >> example of how NOT to do meditation research!
> >>
> >> Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The
> >> Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists
> >> from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and
> >> neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM
> >> cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of "coherence" during TM.
> >> It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically
> >> insignificant and often seen in normal waking state!
> >>
> >> This paper can be found at:
> >>
> >> http://www.box.net/shared/kcnprcg5fq
> >>
> >
> > The fact that it is written by Buddhist meditators doesn't call  
> > into question any aspect of
> > what it says,
> 
> Another red herring. It wasn't written by "Buddhist meditators" in  
> was written by Neuroscientists, one of which has studied Hindu,  
> Buddhist and transcendental meditation. In other words, he's an  
> expert in meditation research, including TM!
> 

He wrote a few studies on TM 30 years ago, and stopped publishing on meditation 
until 
2004. That's, interestingly enough, the time-frame (1980s and 1990s) when TM 
research 
started being more rigorous--after MIU got accredited.


> > whereas meditation research done by TMers is automatically suspect,
> > because, well, TM is a religion, while Buddhism isn't...
> 
> No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad data  
> and exaggerated claims, so it's only natural to be suspicious if  
> you're a scientist (if you're not, you might not even notice). They  
> lost credibility decades ago. Not to mention the natural bias present  
> when researchers promoting a product try to push their own "research".
>

Well, Davidson is often represented as the head of the Dali Lama's team to 
research 
(validate) Buddhist meditation. BUt this is somehow different than "pushing" 
Buddhist 
meditation?


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: De-Regulation Wins - New Deal Loses in Invincible America

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
>   BIG MONEY TYCOON$ NOW IN CHARGE IN INVINCIBLE AMERICA
> > 
> >
> > "No more extensive examiner audits or regulatory directives   
> >for commercial banks or anyone else. Fed supervision will be like 
> >SEC supervision – regulatory light practices of the type that 
> >allowed the investment banks to balloon their balance sheets, 
> >ignore fundamental risks, reap obscene profits, and then raid the 
> >public treasury when things went wrong." 
> > 
> 
> Terrific TMorg metaphor.  Thanks.


I guess Raja Hagelin should be thanked.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
[...]
> > Er, do you think, regardless of whether or not his theories are 
> valid (I'm not claiming that 
> > his current theories are, BTW) that what he presents to layman 
> would EVER be worthy of 
> > publication in a scientific journal?
> > 
> > John's science-oriented stuff is so esoteric that only a relative 
> handful of physicists ever 
> > read it directly. Cutting edge superstring theory published in 
> collaboration with the top 
> > names in that field, isn't normal reading, even for the average PhD 
> in Physics.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Lawson
> >
> 
> Oh how convenient, he's just so ar ahead. That probably explains why, 
> when I stopped at the local, very large and well stocked bookshop and 
> checked the indexes of every physics book in there, I couldn't find 
> his name anywhere. Surely someone who has "finished Einsteins work" 
> would get a footnote or two at the very least.
> 

Well, as I said above, I'm not claiming his current theories are valid. 
However, John's early 
work, which got him the most fame, was done on Flipped SU(5) AFTER he had his 
discussions about Vedic Cosmology with MMY. 


> Perhaps the deafening silence of the rest of the scientific world 
> actually speaks very loudly indeed.
> 
> I think Penrose at least might have given the guy a mention. Him 
> being the only other advocate of any sort of quantum theory of 
> consciousness I'm aware of, though definitely not the UF variety, not 
> yet anyway and as he's a genuine working scientist he won't be making 
> unsubstantiated claims about the ultimate nature of reality in a 
> hurry.
>


Again, did you read John's math-laden papers on the subject? They're 
philosophical in 
nature, rather than scientific, but the insights he gained from his 
philisophical discussions 
with MMY led to the initial modifications of FLipped SU(5) which were the basis 
of his fame 
and at least partly the basis of the fame of Nanapolous and Ellis as well.


Lwson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> 
> > 
> > (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
> 
> 
> Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?
> 
> 
>  
> > The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo
> > claim they are. 
> 
> My "claim" was a quote from their website; 
> 
> "The Ig Nobel Ceremony, now in its fourth year, honors people whose
> achievements cannot or should not be reproduced. Beginning with this
> year's ceremony on October 6, the Ig Nobels will be produced jointly 
> by The MIT Museum and The Annals of Improbable Research."
> 
> Apology to the usual address please.

I can find all sorts of quotes on all sorts of websites. However, the website 
CURRENTLY 
says:

http://www.improb.com/ig/

The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then 
make them 
think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative 
-- and spur 
people's interest in science, medicine, and technology.


> 
> 
> > They would both benefit from reading this
> > essay by Abrams, which is well thought out and much more
> > faithful to the spirit of scientific research than either
> > of them are.
> 
> Oh sure Judy I'm not faithful to the spirit of science because I 
> don't agree with you about the ME. Let me correct you on that, I love 
> science, I always have, I get New Scientist magazine every week, my 
> bookshelves groan under the weight of books on quantum physics, 
> astronomy, paleontology. I wish there was more time to learn it all. 
> When my family got a video recorder my first choice to tape 
> was "Horizon" I love reading about new ideas, I have friends who are 
> physicists who keep me up to date, I'm on the edge of my seat about 
> the big switch-on at CERN this summer. Biased? no I don't think so.
> 
> Regarding J Hagelins Ig nobel victory, I found this on the Igs follow-
> up page;
> 
> 1994-07-03  Ig Nobel Peace Prize: Follow-up Investigation
> 
> Robert L. Park of the American Physical Society (APS) has done a
> follow-up investigation of the work which earned John Hagelin this
> year's Ig Nobel Peace Prize.  Park's report appeared in his weekly
> APS newsletter, "WHAT'S NEW."  It reads in part:
> 
> "The [1994 Ig Nobel] Peace Prize went to physicist John Hagelin
> for his experiment to reduce crime in Washington, DC by the
> coherent meditation of 4,000 TM [Transcendental Meditation]
> experts. By coincidence, Hagelin was holding a press conference
> [on the day of the Ig Nobel Ceremony] to announce his final
> results.  It was a data analysis clinic; violent crime, he proudly
> declared, decreased 18%!  Relative to what?  To the predictions of
> "time-series analysis" involving variables such as temperature and
> the economy.  So although the weekly murder count hit the highest
> level ever recorded, it was less than predicted."
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a more detailed version.
> 
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_24/ai_67691836
> 
> After reading all I can find on the subject I have to conclude that 
> the laws of physics are safe, if you ever find anything to the 
> contrary, other than your own prejudice of course, let us know.
>

Did you ever read what Hagelin and company said in response to Park's remarks?


Science is all about discussion to discover the truth. When you stop looking 
after finding 
something you agree with, you're no longer part of the scientific debate.

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Stu:
> > I think its very cool your playing at these facilities.  A buddy 
> > and I get together weekly to play jazz standards and we always 
> > talk about playing the nursing homes but it never seems to 
> > develop. By the time we get the guts to play in front of old 
> > folks we will have to update our repertoire.
> 
> It is one of the niche markets that I go after to make full time 
> music possible. One day I'll play at a blues club, the next an 
> elementary school or collage and then a nursing home. Seeing so 
> many types of people relate to the Delta blues from their own 
> experience is a real tribute to the artists who created this 
> style of music.

And to your love of it, which cannot help but
color the performance.

> I hope you do find some time to play out sometime. There are so 
> many neglected audiences for real music out there. Kids often 
> are subjected to such musical crap in the name of kid's music.  
> But they respond really well to uncut real music, same with 
> nursing home residents. I never dumb down my show for any 
> audience.  

A very powerful statement, and the whole reason
I'm replying. I just *love* this. That's my personal
definition of art.

To dumb down something one writes or paints or cuts 
on a movieola or sings for an audience doesn't show 
enough respect for them, IMO. If there is magic in the 
art, they can rise to the magic if it's really there.

I feel the same way about spiritual teachers. I have
worked with teachers who clearly regarded their students
as children, and I have worked with a couple who regarded
their students not just as adults, but as multiincarnational
beings who had been around the fuckin' block a few times.
All the difference in the world.

Maybe it's *intention* again...I dunno. Maybe when the
artist feels he has to dumb down the art, he isn't *expect-
ing enough* from the audience. Maybe if he expected more,
he'd get it, and the students would get more *from* it
because they'd had to shift their state of attention to
keep up.

Did you ever see Bucky Fuller or hear him talk? No dumbing
down there, Nosirree. He made up his own vocabulary, and
you had to "get" it to get what he was talking about. And,
possibly as a result, you came away from the talk in a 
slightly different state of attention. You had had to 
shift your state of attention just to *follow* what he
said. I sat in on some of Marshall McLuhan's lectures for a
short while; he was exactly the same. He "wrote down" to
no one -- you were expected to come up to his level.

Last night Mark Knopfler played in a castle in Barcelona.
I didn't make it because I heard about it too late to get
tickets, but I've seen other concerts on this tour, and 
I'm willing to bet that most of the people attending were 
expecting a loud rock concert a la Dire Straits. What they 
got was an amplified (but *quietly* amplified) evening of 
folk music from his latest album, "Kill To Get Crimson." 
There are a few rockers on that album, but even they are 
*quiet* rockers, like "Punish The Monkey."

Mark could "play down" to his audiences by "doing all the
hits." And he does throw one or two into each performance,
just cuz in the biz you gotta. But he reserves the rest
of the set for What He Feels Like Playing. And he gets 
away with it. Hell, I've paid 200 Euros a seat (scalped)
to see Mark Knopfler, and I thought I got a bargain. I 
took five guests, and they came away from the evening
transformed for life. 

My theory for why he gets away with it and why the audiences
react this way is just what you said, Curtis. He refuses to 
dumb down his music. He plays it as he hears it, in all its 
purity of vision. And possibly *because* he never dumbs the 
music down, his audiences come "up" to the level of the music. 

The kids who before the concert knew only "Money For Nothing" 
leave the concert humming "Madame Geneva's," a song that 
could have been sung, or written, in Shakespeare's England. 
They've had their musical horizons expanded, because a great 
artist refused to lower *his* horizon. He showed them what 
he sees and hears in this music, and trusted them to be
*able* to see and hear it themselves. And they did.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Oil Spill

[Duveyoung]

Yep, Shemp, if Obama turns out to be what African Americans deeply
need, then he's lying big time now, and yeah, if he lying now, I'm all
for it.

BushCo murders 3rd worlders, what's so bad about a few lies in order
to get the murdering to stop?

The fundies and the Repugs told every lie possible in order to get
Bush into the oval office. Payback's a bitch, eh?

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > 
> > I'm fingers-crossed that he's just doing what he's got to do until
> > he's got true power.  But my hope has never been all that strong for
> > his being able to fight the good fights.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Am I reading this correctly?  
> 
> It seems, then, Duveyoung, that you prefer that he lie to the voters, 
> win election with a mandate he doesn't intend to honor, and then run 
> the country in a different manner than he told us he would.
> 
> And as for the oil companies: what is your beef with them? Are they 
> not doing a good job in providing you with the gasoline you need to 
> power your SUV?
> 
> Except for a two-week period a few years ago when an oil line between 
> Tucson and Phoenix broke, I have never had to wait to fill up my gas 
> tank with their product whenever I have pulled up to a gas station.  
> It's always available and conveniently available anywhere I travel.
> 
> They deserve the billions of dollars that they earn for providing 
> such an excellent product at such a great price.
> 
> And, by the way, the oil companies themselves, relative to their size 
> and operations, don't consume that much oil.
> 
> It is you and me and everyone else on this forum that guzzles all the 
> gas.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:56 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >> What was the name of the alleged book?
> >
> >
> > Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy about
> > the TMers getting those results, in particular because they weren't
> > meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of stress and
> > relaxation.
> >
> > The issue of "wow, these neophytes got the same results as these long-
> > time Buddhist practitioners" simply didn't arise in his mind.
> 
> 
> He should rest assured that the research was most likely of a  
> questionable nature. I've seen similar things with early TM research  
> which tried to compare itself to other forms of meditation and were  
> based on the erroneous assumption that the parameters which were  
> beneficial for TMers should be the same for others. Another way they  
> did this was to deliberately and consciously inflate baseline  
> measurement of metabolism. The result is TM actually looks  
> hypometabolic (a drop in metabolic rate, an indicator of deep rest),  
> like you see in real yogis. However independent researchers found  
> they could not duplicate it and it turned out TM was actually not  
> hypometabolic at all.
> 



Actually, I've yet to see proof that they deliberately mislead people about the 
hypo-
metabolic thing. In fact, it was MIU research by Brian Kesterson, where he 
studied the 
metabolic differences between people showing regular episodes of transcendental 
consciousness, including breath suspension, with meditators who were NOT 
showing such 
signs, that convinced the TM researchers that MMY was wrong: metabolic rate and 
samadhi are not correlated.

> Nowadays we know this is simply not true. There are other forms of  
> meditation which are quite remarkable in comparison to relaxation  
> response style meditation.
>

Of course, TM isn't relaxation-response style meditation. For you to suggest 
that it IS, 
shows you don't practice TM and never have and even if you went on numerous 
courses 
(even if you became a TM teacher), you obviously never "got it."

And... we still haven't heard of any research published in a peer-reviewed 
scientific circle 
where meditators show spontaneous breath suspension ala the kind found during 
transcendental consciousness during TM practice.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[Duveyoung]

Stu,

There's tons we agree on.  Maybe even everything.

Thank God!  ;-)

Let me make another attempt -- If the below is not resonant with you,
then I would say it indicates merely an incongruence in our spiritual
educations -- not a cognitive dissonance between precise axioms.  (I'm
going to ramble, be a poet, as usual, but hopefully I'll get my points
across.)

First let me say that the "soul" is not "the ultimate" to me, and that
the ego is another notch less substantial than soul and is a merely a
"ray" or "partial expression" of the "soul's spectrum of light." 

To me the soul is all the processes of body/mindand nothing more.
  

It is not eternal. 

TM says this too if you examine what Unity must be -- the death of
ego, the death of individuality, the death of, erp, soul (as a
worshiper,) and Unity is as if God suddenly is taking over the
body/mind and the history of that body/mind is obviated.  Which sounds
creepy, eh?  (Ocean to river: "Who cares about your tiny stream!")

To Advaita, "soul" is still relative, but its "pure form" is also
given the elevated status of "amness" -- that's if the ego is
quiescent.  The ego can can't help itself from identifying with
personality, but it's really stretching things for it to try to
identify with amness -- that buzz of being, that ground state of
existence, the gunas balanced. 

It takes a couple decades in a Zen ashram to train the ego to even be
able to clearly see its "basic buzz." If done perfectly, then ego has
learned to surrender to the spontaneous manifestations of amness, and
one is a saint (unenlightened but perfectly life supporting) who is
capable of always living at the ritam level.  Or so the theory goes.

But when that saint dies, he/she dies.  Any heavens imagined, any
karmic debts thought owed, any anys of anything, must exist solely
within that saint's body/mind, and they too will die.

It took me years of studying Advaita before it finally, intellectually
only, "popped" for me that ego is not my identity and that even soul,
for all its perfection, is not a primal, cosmic identity; it's merely
another symbol, but one which is as close as existence can get to a
manifestation of the absolute. 

I don't think personality survives death.  This includes ego.  This
includes soul.  Personality, ego, soul -- these are THINGS.  This
includes amness's symbolic presence as a process in a nervous system.
 At death, a light goes out; personal amness processes are turned off.

But I do think that "that" from which, well let's not be shy,
EVERYTHING has emerged is eternal, and that, if one wishes to do so,
one can train the ego to stop being a pest long enough for this "that"
to stand out clearly. This "that" is not merely "universe" and
includes "non-universe" too -- see Godel for details.

During training, at first, amness's buzz will beguile because its
qualities are seemingly divine and more than merely a powerful symbol
of silence, but, if another notch lower state of excitation is
achieved, identification is allowed a chance to abandon the 
body/mind/amness and glom onto "pure silence," "void," "absolute" and
find that identity is "finally real" when it resides in silence beyond
conceptions.

Struggling here with words.  If I could write about this easily, I'd
be a guru speaking from the heart, but, nope, only running with my
intellect here, so I have to build up my abstractions from axioms, and
I only had two cups of coffee, so, whew!...hard work.

You wrote, "The very usage of soul is skewed.  The very idea that
anyone HAS a soul is obscene.  What kind of possession is a soul?"

I say, that the soul possesses ego not the other way around.  And like
that, equally, soul is "within" the absolute -- which of course has no
"inside" or "outside."  

Sigh.  

Absolute is the source of consciousness, consciousness is the source
of ego, ego is the source of personality, and if the body/mind trains
itself well, a person can, until death, meld all these identities into
one spiritual wad, but after death, only the absolute will "remain."

I don't believe in re-incarnation, but I believe in crystallization of
identity.

Ego is a temporary delusion -- a merely local precipitation out of
soul/consciousness, but typically if along comes another body/mind
that is similar to a previous, known, personality, say, what Abraham
Lincoln's was historically reported to be, it's no wonder that the ego
will jump on the chance of espousing that a transferance from
history's Abe has occurred.  

But in fact, when Captain Kirk is beamed up, his body/mind on the
planet below is destroyed and another "exact" copy is created by
Scotty's machinery aboard the Enterprise.  There's no transference,
but identification with "a locality" will instantly crystallize in the
"new Kirk."  The new Kirk will insist that he is the old Kirk, but
DON'T MISS THAT  Scotty machine's abilities -- yes I'm revealing a
Star Trek Secret of Secrets -- presumably enabled Scotty to leave the
old K

[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Bass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Shemps referring to Richard Davidson's research.  Its been trumpeted  
> all over the media.
> 
> Since then there have been other researchers out there looking into  
> meditation. Scientists have been using Mindfulness Meditation as a  
> focus.  A number of psychologists have been incorporating MM into  
> their therapy for the last 20 years based on the work of shrinks like  
> Jack Kornfield who coined the phrase Buddhist  Psychology.
> 
> Meanwhile TM public relations missed the boat focusing on pouring oil  
> on rich people. Now if you ask mainstream researchers if they have  
> looked into alternative forms of meditation they don't really care  
> because they don't know.

Sigh, MMY's goal was to spiritually regenerate all of Mankind. By his beliefs, 
he could have 
taught  100,000,000+ people TM in order to have 1% of the world's population 
practicing 
TM regularly OR he could gather together groups of 8-10,000 TM-SIdhas and have 
THEM 
practice together regularly. He chose the latter path. You don't think the 
Maharishi Effect 
works so therefore you do think he made the correct choice.

I don't know that the ME works, but if it does, he certainly made the correct 
choice since 
his organization is indeed getting groups of 8-10,000 together.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[hugheshugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

> 
> (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)


Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?


 
> The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo
> claim they are. 

My "claim" was a quote from their website; 

"The Ig Nobel Ceremony, now in its fourth year, honors people whose
achievements cannot or should not be reproduced. Beginning with this
year's ceremony on October 6, the Ig Nobels will be produced jointly 
by The MIT Museum and The Annals of Improbable Research."

Apology to the usual address please.


> They would both benefit from reading this
> essay by Abrams, which is well thought out and much more
> faithful to the spirit of scientific research than either
> of them are.

Oh sure Judy I'm not faithful to the spirit of science because I 
don't agree with you about the ME. Let me correct you on that, I love 
science, I always have, I get New Scientist magazine every week, my 
bookshelves groan under the weight of books on quantum physics, 
astronomy, paleontology. I wish there was more time to learn it all. 
When my family got a video recorder my first choice to tape 
was "Horizon" I love reading about new ideas, I have friends who are 
physicists who keep me up to date, I'm on the edge of my seat about 
the big switch-on at CERN this summer. Biased? no I don't think so.

Regarding J Hagelins Ig nobel victory, I found this on the Igs follow-
up page;

1994-07-03  Ig Nobel Peace Prize: Follow-up Investigation

Robert L. Park of the American Physical Society (APS) has done a
follow-up investigation of the work which earned John Hagelin this
year's Ig Nobel Peace Prize.  Park's report appeared in his weekly
APS newsletter, "WHAT'S NEW."  It reads in part:

"The [1994 Ig Nobel] Peace Prize went to physicist John Hagelin
for his experiment to reduce crime in Washington, DC by the
coherent meditation of 4,000 TM [Transcendental Meditation]
experts. By coincidence, Hagelin was holding a press conference
[on the day of the Ig Nobel Ceremony] to announce his final
results.  It was a data analysis clinic; violent crime, he proudly
declared, decreased 18%!  Relative to what?  To the predictions of
"time-series analysis" involving variables such as temperature and
the economy.  So although the weekly murder count hit the highest
level ever recorded, it was less than predicted."



Here is a more detailed version.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_24/ai_67691836

After reading all I can find on the subject I have to conclude that 
the laws of physics are safe, if you ever find anything to the 
contrary, other than your own prejudice of course, let us know.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/press/Newsweek_lotus_synapse.html
> The Lotus and the Synapse
> Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:42 PM
> 
>
[...]
> But there is one clue that he's right: he's been finding that the  
> more hours of meditation a monk has had, the greater the brain  
> changes. Call it a dose-response effect, with meditation being the  
> dose and brain changes the response. That's a strong hint that the  
> dose causes the response, and is not just a coincidence. And a hint,  
> too, that the Dalai Lama was right and the brain surgeon wrong.
>

Actually, his latest finding is a bit different than the over-simplification 
above:

1: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jul 3;104(27):11483-8. Epub 2007 Jun 27.  
Links
Neural correlates of attentional expertise in long-term meditation 
practitioners.

Brefczynski-Lewis JA, Lutz A, Schaefer HS, Levinson DB, Davidson RJ.
W.M. Keck Laboratory for Functional Brain Imaging and Behavior, Medical College 
of 
Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53226, USA.
Meditation refers to a family of mental training practices that are designed to 
familiarize 
the practitioner with specific types of mental processes. One of the most basic 
forms of 
meditation is concentration meditation, in which sustained attention is focused 
on an 
object such as a small visual stimulus or the breath. In age-matched 
participants, using 
functional MRI, we found that activation in a network of brain regions 
typically involved in 
sustained attention showed an inverted u-shaped curve in which expert 
meditators (EMs) 
with an average of 19,000 h of practice had more activation than novices, but 
EMs with an 
average of 44,000 h had less activation. In response to distracter sounds used 
to probe 
the meditation, EMs vs. novices had less brain activation in regions related to 
discursive 
thoughts and emotions and more activation in regions related to response 
inhibition and 
attention. Correlation with hours of practice suggests possible plasticity in 
these 
mechanisms.

[FairfieldLife] Re: De-Regulation Wins - New Deal Loses in Invincible America

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
  BIG MONEY TYCOON$ NOW IN CHARGE IN INVINCIBLE AMERICA
> 
>
> "No more extensive examiner audits or regulatory directives   
>for commercial banks or anyone else. Fed supervision will be like 
>SEC supervision – regulatory light practices of the type that 
>allowed the investment banks to balloon their balance sheets, 
>ignore fundamental risks, reap obscene profits, and then raid the 
>public treasury when things went wrong." 
> 

Terrific TMorg metaphor.  Thanks.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Stuart Bass wrote:
> 
> > Shemps referring to Richard Davidson's research.  Its been  
> > trumpeted all over the media.
> >
> > Since then there have been other researchers out there looking into  
> > meditation. Scientists have been using Mindfulness Meditation as a  
> > focus.  A number of psychologists have been incorporating MM into  
> > their therapy for the last 20 years based on the work of shrinks  
> > like Jack Kornfield who coined the phrase Buddhist  Psychology.
> >
> > Meanwhile TM public relations missed the boat focusing on pouring  
> > oil on rich people. Now if you ask mainstream researchers if they  
> > have looked into alternative forms of meditation they don't really  
> > care because they don't know.
> 
> 
> Actually Richard Davidson started out researching TM. Rather than  
> finding what TM researchers found, he found their research was really  
> not up to par, exaggerated and misleading. It was only later that he  
> began to study Buddhist forms of meditation.
> 
> Early Mindfulness research had some of the same problems that TM  
> research has (no controls, etc.) although they've continued to  
> improve their methodologies and study design over time. The newer  
> stuff is quite well designed and controlled, thus we're now seeing  
> meditation research published in major, prestigious journals.
>


Actually, Davidson published 3 studies on meditation in the late 70's and took 
a break 
from publishing on the topic until 2003. ANd while it is certainly true that 
studies from 
that time were less than perfect, how is it that none of the more recent 
research on TM 
gets a pass from you, despite being done by non-TMing researchers, while 
Davidson's 
studies are perfect, even though he is Buddhist:


Lawson

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla

[Sal Sunshine]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Vaj wrote:


Possible topics for next week:

TM: Is it really effortless?

Hillary: Slut or Saint?


I'm probably missing something really obvious here, Vaj, but what  
exactly has she ever done to qualify her for either title?


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
"tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > TomT: Have Fun!
> > > Barry:
> > Always. You, too, I trust...
> > 
> > TomT:
> > It seems that is our purpose or so it seems. 
> Barry:
> This could be interpreted as a throwaway comment
> on your part, but I don't see it as one, because
> I thoroughly agree. I think that fun is one of
> the most misunderstood principles in the universe,
> and the one that can show us the most about whether
> we're as "on the path" as we think we are.
> 
> This takes us back to a conversation we had a few years 
> ago about appreciation. Fun is the gross version of 
> appreciation. 

I remember the chat about appreciation, but
I don't agree about fun being in any way 
"gross." I think that people who have odd
preconceptions about what fun is may think 
that, but I don't. To me "fun" is what being 
in tune with the Tao *feels* like. It is the
perception of the infinite flowing through you.

> I some times use them interchangeably even though they 
> are not. 

I wouldn't consider them interchangeable. One
can appreciate without having fun, and vice-
versa. 

> It appears to me now, that appreciation is our finest 
> purpose and that ultimately leads to intimacy with it all. 
> For me it seemed to be ever increasing amounts and degrees 
> of appreciation and then the intimacy kicked in like the 
> Saturn Booster Rocket. Things have not been the same since.
> It is now a love affair with it all and it is all me. Tom

I can never argue with a person's personal 
experience. I like the notion of fun better
than the notion of appreciation partly because 
fun traditionally gets such a badrap in spirit-
ual circles. People talk about "serious seekers," 
"serious students," "taking the study seriously." 
I don't think "serious" is quite as admirable a
quality it has been made out to be. I tend to 
agree with the words of that wonderful Christian 
philosopher, G. K. Chesterton, who said, 
"Seriousness is not a virtue."

One can appreciate something and still be
all serious. But if you're really having fun,
it's tough to pretend to be all serious. And
to me, fun is an "indicator" that one is doing
something right, spiritually, whereas serious-
ness has absolutely NOTHING to do with spirit-
uality. 

Fun to me is a certain liveliness that happens 
when you are "in the groove," in tune with things. 
The things *themselves* don't matter. You could 
be shoveling shit and still be having fun. Whereas
you could be getting laid and not having any at
all, and be all serious about it.

Fun to me implies being able to *be* in the
moment and appreciate it flowing through you.
Whereas you could sit back and convince your-
self intellectually that you were "appreciating"
the moment, while remaining distant from it.

I honestly think that the spiritual path was
designed to be FUN. If it isn't, that path
may not lead where you think it does.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[Marek Reavis]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Curtis, Stu, Anyone,

It bugs me that I'm unable to make music and I'd like to learn.  What 
would be your recommendations re best instrument to learn?  

Marek

**

> 
> > 
> > My moms slowly working her way towards Alzheimers.  Right now her 
memory
> > is about 5 minutes long.  She still has her emotions and manages 
to be
> > happy, though that probably the anti-depressants talking.  Its 
been
> > toughest on my father who has devoted his life to her care now.
> 
> Sorry to hear that. Most of the patients I saw seemed childishly 
happy
> but a few were not.  The happy ones seemed like they would be much
> easier to be around.  A local herb grower near DC wrote two books
> about his own descent into Alzheimers: http://tinyurl.com/2yfgn6  He
> is locally famous among gardeners because his greenhouse has dozens 
of
> variates from different countries of cooking herbs. Each year I 
would
> notice the changes and how his son runs the greenhouses.  
> 
> > 
> > I have learned one important lesson from it.  That Ram Das slogan 
Be
> > Here Now ain't whats its cracked up to be.  Take away our memories
> and > our ability to plan for the future and we become blithering
> idiots.  At > best the lesson we take from "living in the moment" is
> to appreciate our> marbles.
> 
> This represents a profound insight into one of most bogus qualities 
of
> the descriptions of "enlightenment."  That line on sand, water and 
air
> nonsense seems completely crazy to me now.  My life's meaning is in
> the details and the relative qualities of my life. Glorifying an 
empty
> mind (even if you call it fullness) just doesn't interest me 
anymore.
>  Although I can enjoy short periods of meditation as a break, the
> thought of sitting in that state for hours as I once did seems like
> such a waste of time for me.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Andrew Sachs just wrote a book about this very thing, 
Musicophilia.  He
> > has an interesting theory about how a melody requires a person to 
hear
> > where it comes from and how its going to resolve.  It allows 
patients
> > with memory problems to take part in an emotional story as it 
unfolds.
> 
> Thanks for the book, I'll check it out. This facility had a full 
time
> music therapist so they must feel it is important.  One interesting
> thing was that they cleared out the room by singing a song about
> "going home" and marching them all out.  It worked really well with
> just a tinge of Orwellian nightmare for me to watch it! 
> 
> > 
> > I think its very cool your playing at these facilities.  A buddy 
and
> I > get together weekly to play jazz standards and we always talk
> about > playing the nursing homes but it never seems to develop. By
> the time we > get the guts to play in front of old folks we will 
have
> to update our > repertoire.
> 
> It is one of the niche markets that I go after to make full time 
music
> possible.  One day I'll play at a blues club, the next an elementary
> school or collage and then a nursing home.  Seeing so many types of
> people relate to the Delta blues from their own experience is a real
> tribute to the artists who created this style of music.
> 
> I hope you do find some time to play out sometime.  There are so 
many
> neglected audiences for real music out there.  Kids often are
> subjected to such musical crap in the name of kid's music.  But they
> respond really well to uncut real music, same with nursing home
> residents.  I never dumb down my show for any audience.  We are all
> connected through our emotions expressed in music.
> 
> 
> > >
> > Tried yr trick and was literally blown away.  Subsequently I've 
been
> > searching for a USB device that would complete the job.
> 
> I just ordered a connection interface for my vacuum cleaner, the
> "Shakira" model.  If this works out I'm gunna save a bundle on my
> usual "drive thru full service" at the local highway truck stop.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > s.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] De-Regulation Wins - New Deal Loses in Invincible America

[do.rflex]

 BIG MONEY TYCOON$ NOW IN CHARGE IN INVINCIBLE AMERICA

   
    "No more extensive examiner audits or regulatory directives   
   for commercial banks or anyone else. Fed supervision will be like 
   SEC supervision – regulatory light practices of the type that 
   allowed the investment banks to balloon their balance sheets, 
   ignore fundamental risks, reap obscene profits, and then raid the 
   public treasury when things went wrong." 


The war against the New Deal has just won an Astounding Victory

Numerian
The Agonist, April 1, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/ypu62v


Is there anything the Republican Party loathes more than FDR and the
New Deal? How many times have people like Newt Gingrich and Grover
Norquist vowed to dismantle the regulations, entitlement programs, and
safety nets created by the New Deal? Time and again we've seen
assaults on all aspects of FDR's legacy, including a Social Security
"reform" effort in 2005 that might have succeeded if George Bush
hadn't been hobbled by the Iraq War.

Last month the Republicans had a great victory in their effort to undo
the New Deal, by eliminating completely any distinction between
commercial banks and investment banks, while at the same time giving
investment banks unfettered access to the public treasury with none of
the responsibilities or burdens placed on commercial banks. All of
this was accomplished in the same way as 9/11 allowed the
administration to claim unheralded executive powers – by using an
"emergency" to justify a power grab perpetrated with no reference to
you the taxpayer, or your representatives in Congress.

To understand the magnitude of what the Republicans have done, we must
look back at the 1930's reforms enacted in response to the Depression.

The stock market crash and subsequent collapse of hundreds of banks in
the U.S. resulted in a series of legislative and regulatory reforms.
Investment banks were restricted to bringing bond and stock issues to
the capital markets. They were not allowed to have checking or savings
accounts for individuals, and they were regulated by the Securities
and Exchange Commission. This new regulatory agency has concentrated
throughout its existence on protecting the rights of investors, and
has not exercised a heavy hand over the investment banks unless they
are found to defraud or violate investor's interests.

Commercial banks were put under the strict supervision of the Federal
Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency. Regulation in this case
involved extensive and intrusive inspection of banks to ensure their
safety and soundness.

These two regulators were joined by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp., which took over failing banks and paid out depositors up to
$100,000.

The FDIC insurance for depositors helped prevent bank runs, and the
close supervision of the regulators ensured that banks were not
exposed to undue credit, market or other risks. The Fed had the
authority to lend money to banks in the event they got into trouble,
and this "lender of last resort" power has also been a significant
comfort to the public when any question arises as to a bank's
survivability.

The investment banks have never had this lender of last resort
protection, which involves access to the Fed's discount window for
loans at the cheapest rate in the market.

If investments banks have gotten into trouble, they have had to turn
to commercial banks for lines of credit, without which the investment
bank could fail. This is what happened to Drexel Burnham and other
over-extended investment banks – they failed because commercial banks
no longer supported them with credit, and because they could not turn
directly to the Fed. This second class citizenship has always rankled
the investment banks.

On the other hand, the investment banks never had to face up to
rigorous Federal Reserve examinations, with examiners poring over
every loan and transaction, demanding improvements, and even requiring
management changes if necessary (such is the price of maintaining
lender of last resort access).

Commercial banks have been restricted by Fed regulation to maintaining
a 10:1 ratio of assets to capital. Investments banks have no such
restrictions. They have routinely carried leverage ratios of 30:1,
meaning they can generate vastly more profits than commercial banks,
and pay out much higher bonuses.

Investment banks have tried mightily to invade commercial banking
business, dating back 30 years ago when Merrill Lynch first introduced
the money market account, which acted just like a checking account but
with no FDIC insurance.

To assuage public fears about default risk, investment banks set up
their own insurance fund that mimics FDIC insurance. This however,
still did not give them access to the discount window or lender of
last resort privileges.

All that changed last month. The most significant thing that happened
during the Bear Stearns crisis was not the collapse and rescue of Bear
Stearns by the Fed 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[Vaj]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Stuart Bass wrote:

Shemps referring to Richard Davidson's research.  Its been  
trumpeted all over the media.


Since then there have been other researchers out there looking into  
meditation. Scientists have been using Mindfulness Meditation as a  
focus.  A number of psychologists have been incorporating MM into  
their therapy for the last 20 years based on the work of shrinks  
like Jack Kornfield who coined the phrase Buddhist  Psychology.


Meanwhile TM public relations missed the boat focusing on pouring  
oil on rich people. Now if you ask mainstream researchers if they  
have looked into alternative forms of meditation they don't really  
care because they don't know.



Actually Richard Davidson started out researching TM. Rather than  
finding what TM researchers found, he found their research was really  
not up to par, exaggerated and misleading. It was only later that he  
began to study Buddhist forms of meditation.


Early Mindfulness research had some of the same problems that TM  
research has (no controls, etc.) although they've continued to  
improve their methodologies and study design over time. The newer  
stuff is quite well designed and controlled, thus we're now seeing  
meditation research published in major, prestigious journals.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[Stuart Bass]

Shemps referring to Richard Davidson's research.  Its been trumpeted  
all over the media.


Since then there have been other researchers out there looking into  
meditation. Scientists have been using Mindfulness Meditation as a  
focus.  A number of psychologists have been incorporating MM into  
their therapy for the last 20 years based on the work of shrinks like  
Jack Kornfield who coined the phrase Buddhist  Psychology.


Meanwhile TM public relations missed the boat focusing on pouring oil  
on rich people. Now if you ask mainstream researchers if they have  
looked into alternative forms of meditation they don't really care  
because they don't know.


s.

On Apr 2, 2008, at 8:56 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What was the name of the alleged book?

Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy about
the TMers getting those results, in particular because they weren't
meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of stress and
relaxation.

The issue of "wow, these neophytes got the same results as these long-
time Buddhist practitioners" simply didn't arise in his mind.

>
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:15 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:
>
> > I remember reading in a book on meditation several years back that
> > studies had been done on Buddhist monks who had meditated for
> > decades. They then did the same studies on TMers who had been
> > meditating for just a few months...and they got the same results!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Would You Sign This?

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Would you trust your Spiritual life, to a TM-TB'er now?
> >
>
 
If you had the time to read and think about this, 
would you sign this?

> 
>   o the A of  E Agreement
> 
> 4. I understand that the practice of the programs does not require 
> the acceptance of any belief or lifestyle.
> 
> 6. I understand that the organizations teaching the programs and 
> Advanced Courses of the AoE are non-profit organizations dedicated 
to 
> benefiting the individual, society and the world and that all of 
> their resources and energy are used to fulfill these valuable 
> purposes.
> 
> These organizations shall be entitled to enforce this provision of 
> the Agreement by injunctive relief as well as be entitled to any 
> other legal or equitable remedy.
>

11.  or those teachings received on any prior courses.  
I agree that I will not in the future modify or change in any way the 
teachings that I have received in prior courses or will receive on 
this course unless instructed to do so by an authorized teacher of 
the organization.

> 17.  I also agree that the organizations offering this course may 
> intervene at any time in any proceeding involving a teacher, or an 
> organization in order to enforce the provisions of this agreement 
for 
> the benefit of itself, the teacher or other organization.  The 
> organization conducting this Course shall have the right, without 
my 
> consent, to transfer its rights and obligations contained in this 
> Agreement to any other person or organization.
> 
> Jai Guru Dev,
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[Vaj]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:56 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


What was the name of the alleged book?



Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy about
the TMers getting those results, in particular because they weren't
meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of stress and
relaxation.

The issue of "wow, these neophytes got the same results as these long-
time Buddhist practitioners" simply didn't arise in his mind.



He should rest assured that the research was most likely of a  
questionable nature. I've seen similar things with early TM research  
which tried to compare itself to other forms of meditation and were  
based on the erroneous assumption that the parameters which were  
beneficial for TMers should be the same for others. Another way they  
did this was to deliberately and consciously inflate baseline  
measurement of metabolism. The result is TM actually looks  
hypometabolic (a drop in metabolic rate, an indicator of deep rest),  
like you see in real yogis. However independent researchers found  
they could not duplicate it and it turned out TM was actually not  
hypometabolic at all.


Nowadays we know this is simply not true. There are other forms of  
meditation which are quite remarkable in comparison to relaxation  
response style meditation.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla

[Vaj]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:38 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Once more I've had the opportunity to use my last
post of the week to expose Barry as a chronic liar
and a hypocrite. He never quite seems to get how
this works.


And once more Judy never seems to notice
that I'm the one who got her to *make* that
last post, and thus be out of our hair. My
thanks this week go out to Vaj and Sal, who
contributed to the effort.  :-)



Possible topics for next week:

TM: Is it really effortless?

Hillary: Slut or Saint?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Oil Spill

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From FactCheck.org:
> 
> Obama's Oil Spill
> March 31, 2008
> 
> Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a 
> little too slick.
> 
> Summary
> In a new ad, Obama says, "I don't take money from oil companies."
> 
> Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for 
> more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly 
> to any federal candidate. But that doesn't distinguish Obama from his 
> rivals in the race.
> 
> We find the statement misleading:
> 
> Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for 
> companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses. 

Here's the full sentence:

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from
individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the
oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than
$306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry.

[FairfieldLife] How TM'ers are set adrift morally and ethically.

[BillyG.]

Since TM is being taught in the context of Science, for many, (if not
all) TM has become Science *in lieu* of Religion!  What a great loss,
MMY teaches to pull the arrow back on the bow, but he doesn't teach
*where to aim* the arrow! 

That is where Religion comes in, the direction given by Religion saves
the aspirant years and years of trial and error (finding out all of
this stuff he could have been told up front) by learning it the hard way.

But that was not MMY's world ministry, his objective was to turn the
tide of cultural degeneration and steer society back to the tried and
true methods of Vedic culture. He compromised, and devised 'Yoga-lite
for modernity' as the most rapid way to achieve this end!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept

[endlessrainintoapapercup]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "endlessrainintoapapercup"
>  wrote:
> >
> > TurqB., you're a bit of a wild man,
> > but that's all part of your charm.
> > I enjoyed our conversation yesterday,
> > but remain puzzled by the apparent
> > lack of any congruence and 
> > understanding between us regarding
> > the subject of reality/Reality. 
> 
> Reality is your crutch, dude, not mine.
> Don't expect me to get all passionate
> about it.  :-)


I think you ARE pretty passionate
about it, Turq.


> 
> That was it. "Reality" implies a perceiver.
> Without one there is no possibility of such
> a concept, or distinguishing "reality" from
> "non-reality." 


I was not separating the perceiver
from what is perceived. The perceiver
is part of reality.


> 
> And when there is a perceiver, there is a 
> point of view. And where there is a point
> of view, there are other points of view on
> the same thing or things being perceived.
> 

On the level of individual perception,
everything that is perceived is part
of reality, including the perceiver and
the process of perception--and this would
include the existence of all other apparent
individuals and their own POVs and
experience of reality.
. 
> 
> There is no "shared understanding" at all.
> In the universe. It's all points of view,
> each unique, each trying to find some 
> "agreement" with other points of view,
> endlessly. IMO, of course.


Well, it's true that I was operating
from an assumption of a certain
commonality among enlightenment
traditions despite different POVs.
But you can't say there is no shared
understanding at all. We live in a
collective reality which is based on 
shared understanding, and all
communication is based on it.


> Not a WORD of the rap below had anything to
> do with what YOU believe. The "you's" in the
> rap were rhetorical, or directed to Jim (Sandi
> Ego), whom I was conversing with, not you. The 
> fact that you see the post as being directed to 
> YOUR point of view when it wasn't tends to prove 
> my point about points of view IMO, and rein-
> forces what Tom said. We "color" our perceptions
> by perceiving them; we project our selves into
> the things we perceive. You seem to have done
> so, and that's one kind of...uh...reality, I
> guess.
> 

I wasn't referring exclusively to this post--
rather to several of your posts on this 
thread. But you say I'm projecting, and 
that you weren't making any statements 
intended to reflect my beliefs or my
experience. OK.

I continue to be interested in your
point of view, and the questions that
have arisen for me in regard to it.
If you can suffer my 'obsession with
reality', I'd like to keep talking to
you about it a little further...?

Now, though, I have to go to work.



> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In 
> > > > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Barry writes snipped:
> > > > > > I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there
> > > > > > being a Saganesque "billions and billions" of realities. 
> > > > > > That poses no problem for me whatsoever. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > TomT:
> > > > > For me it appears to be a Baskin and Robbins store with trillions 
> > > > > of flavors and ultimately the only thing you can know is the 
> > > > > flavor of you the perceiver. It has your flavor as it is filtered 
> > > > > through the DNA you are made of. You impart the flavor by the act 
> > > > > of perceiving.
> > > > > Have fun. TOm
> > > > 
> > > > so the "Saganesque" and "Baskin and Robbins store" containers 
> > > > are what each of you conceptually use as your metaphors for 
> > > > reality with a capital R. 
> > > 
> > > What I think we are saying (I hope Tom will
> > > forgive me for speaking for him) is that we
> > > don't feel any need to delude ourselves into
> > > thinking that 1) there is such a thing as
> > > Reality with a capital R, or 2) that we know
> > > what it is. reality (or realities) with a 
> > > lowercase r is just fine for us.
> > > 
> > > The point I've been trying to make is that
> > > reality is merely a *concept*. It can't stand
> > > on its own; it does not and cannot have an
> > > existence independent of a perceiver. It needs 
> > > a perceiver to *perceive* reality, or to 
> > > distinguish it from (if such a thing existed) 
> > > non-reality. It's a codependent relationship. :-)
> > > 
> > > And the moment you bring a perceiver into the
> > > equation, you have Point Of View. That POV, in
> > > the perceiver, has to color the nature of the
> > > perceived. Some claim that they can attain a
> > > state of consciousness or POV that is "color-
> > > less," and that as a result what they perceive
> > > is accurate -- Reality. I don't buy it. (As an
> > > aside, you may feel tha

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Oil Spill

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


[snip]

> 
> I'm fingers-crossed that he's just doing what he's got to do until
> he's got true power.  But my hope has never been all that strong for
> his being able to fight the good fights.

[snip]

Am I reading this correctly?  

It seems, then, Duveyoung, that you prefer that he lie to the voters, 
win election with a mandate he doesn't intend to honor, and then run 
the country in a different manner than he told us he would.

And as for the oil companies: what is your beef with them? Are they 
not doing a good job in providing you with the gasoline you need to 
power your SUV?

Except for a two-week period a few years ago when an oil line between 
Tucson and Phoenix broke, I have never had to wait to fill up my gas 
tank with their product whenever I have pulled up to a gas station.  
It's always available and conveniently available anywhere I travel.

They deserve the billions of dollars that they earn for providing 
such an excellent product at such a great price.

And, by the way, the oil companies themselves, relative to their size 
and operations, don't consume that much oil.

It is you and me and everyone else on this forum that guzzles all the 
gas.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla

[Vaj]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:26 AM, authfriend wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
wrote:


On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:10 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


And that sense of entitlement extends to being
regarded as someone who knows what she's talking
about, especially when she clearly doesn't. Hillary
gets indignant and more than a little crazy when
someone challenges her claims.


And unfortunately, advocates like Judy, who usually can advocate
fairly and even reasonably, go bonkers when that happens because,
I imagine, they know the challenges have merit.


It's a devotion-related phenomenon. When someone
has invested a lot in a political candidate (or
a spiritual teacher), they often become what is
called "professional apologists" for that person.
They think they're expressing devotion, but in
reality by consistently justifying the unjustifi-
able they're being *enablers* of the unjustifiable
actions, and the people who perform them.


Translation: Neither Sal nor Barry wants to believe
that Hillary's Tuzla story was anything but a
deliberate lie--regardless of whether the notion that
she lied makes a lick of sense. Their minds are so
tightly closed they're literally incapable of
entertaining any other possibility.


Actually that's a "Judy Translation".



So what do they do? They shoot the messenger.

(Shall I go dig up examples of Barry's innumerable
complaints about TMers shooting the messenger?)


Not unless you want to look like someone who has real hard time  
keeping it in the present and on topic and not someone really  
desperate...


Oh never mind, go ahead!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What was the name of the alleged book?


Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy about 
the TMers getting those results, in particular because they weren't 
meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of stress and 
relaxation.

The issue of "wow, these neophytes got the same results as these long-
time Buddhist practitioners" simply didn't arise in his mind.




> 
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:15 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> 
> > I remember reading in a book on meditation several years back that
> > studies had been done on Buddhist monks who had meditated for
> > decades.  They then did the same studies on TMers who had been
> > meditating for just a few months...and they got the same results!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 Again, does this behavior sound familiar?
>
YES- your behavior and responses to Judy are numbingly and endlessly 
familiar...face it bub- you are addicted.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!

[Vaj]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:08 AM, authfriend wrote:


Vaj, I'm close to my limit for the week. I'll get to your
deceitful bafflegab about the TM research on Saturday.
In the meantime, I'll deal with *this* piece of deceit
from you:


Don't bother unless you have some independent research on TM you can  
share. I, like Ruth and others, really don't have time for wasted  
posts responding to a constant barrage of mischaracterizations which  
demand responses, strawmen/Judy's golem arguments and red herrings.  
Such pervasive dishonesty and consistent use of logical fallacy is  
something truly worth ignoring.


We already know you're horribly and frantically desperate to try to  
prove that biased, TMO-sponsored research is just the cats meow and  
that world class scientists who get published in university textbooks  
just don't know what they're talking about.


But sadly for you, I really don't look to aging and disgruntled text  
editors for scientific advice.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote:


So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for?


It's for research that's considered laughable


Oops, no, you didn't get that quite right, Vaj.

From the Ig Nobel Web site:

"The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make
people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are
intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative
-- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and
technology."

http://www.ignobel.com/ig/

You've gotten this wrong before, and I've corrected you.
Your repetition of your error means we can chalk up to
your account one more deliberate attempt to mislead.

(Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)


Actually I had it right before and and now. My response is from the  
igNobel people as well.


I always found your desperate attempts to try to prove otherwise,  
shall I say, entertaining.


Nice try, but no cigar.




and "that cannot, or should not, be reproduced."

Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of
pseudoscience.


True dat. But "should not be reproduced" ain't quite
the same thing, is it, now?



Well actually the quote says "cannot or should not".

So, in any event, the research you are referring to is pseudoscience.

Does anyone else find it hilarious this Judy-thrashing to try to make  
the igNobel prizes look, uh, noble?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Oil Spill

[Duveyoung]

Judy,

Thanks for this.  GAWD I hate it  -- do you think that Obama deals
with the devil or is he a devil wannabe?

I'm fingers-crossed that he's just doing what he's got to do until
he's got true power.  But my hope has never been all that strong for
his being able to fight the good fights.

Hillary is already a devil in terms of having a skill set that allows
her to sashay into any smoked filled room and cutting a killer deal
for herself.  She's a genuine princess of darkness, and in Kali Yuga,
that may be a most excellent asset.

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From FactCheck.org:
> 
> Obama's Oil Spill
> March 31, 2008
> 
> Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a 
> little too slick.
> 
> Summary
> In a new ad, Obama says, "I don't take money from oil companies."
> 
> Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for 
> more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly 
> to any federal candidate. But that doesn't distinguish Obama from his 
> rivals in the race.
> 
> We find the statement misleading:
> 
> Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for 
> companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses. 
> 
> Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are 
> listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for 
> the presidential hopeful. 
> 
> Read more:
> 
> http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html
> http://tinyurl.com/35s7f5
> 
> "New politics," my Aunt Cornelia.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Once more I've had the opportunity to use my last
> post of the week to expose Barry as a chronic liar
> and a hypocrite. He never quite seems to get how
> this works.

And once more Judy never seems to notice 
that I'm the one who got her to *make* that
last post, and thus be out of our hair. My
thanks this week go out to Vaj and Sal, who
contributed to the effort.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > >
> > The "you's" in the
> > > rap were rhetorical, or directed to Jim (Sandi
> > > Ego), whom I was conversing with, not you. 
> > 
> > I see you understand Spanish too- lol.
> 
> By adopting that name, was your intention to
> identify with San Diego? That particular saint
> is mainly known for being a "catechist," mean-

superficially-- I was born there.

> ing a repeater of dogma.  :-)
> 
> Oh, he was also a married celibate. Whatever
> floats yer boat...I like Sandi Ego better; it
> seems to capture the essence of Jim.
>
as usual you are full of, uh, assumptions.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[curtisdeltablues]

> 
> My moms slowly working her way towards Alzheimers.  Right now her memory
> is about 5 minutes long.  She still has her emotions and manages to be
> happy, though that probably the anti-depressants talking.  Its been
> toughest on my father who has devoted his life to her care now.

Sorry to hear that. Most of the patients I saw seemed childishly happy
but a few were not.  The happy ones seemed like they would be much
easier to be around.  A local herb grower near DC wrote two books
about his own descent into Alzheimers: http://tinyurl.com/2yfgn6  He
is locally famous among gardeners because his greenhouse has dozens of
variates from different countries of cooking herbs. Each year I would
notice the changes and how his son runs the greenhouses.  

> 
> I have learned one important lesson from it.  That Ram Das slogan Be
> Here Now ain't whats its cracked up to be.  Take away our memories
and > our ability to plan for the future and we become blithering
idiots.  At > best the lesson we take from "living in the moment" is
to appreciate our> marbles.

This represents a profound insight into one of most bogus qualities of
the descriptions of "enlightenment."  That line on sand, water and air
nonsense seems completely crazy to me now.  My life's meaning is in
the details and the relative qualities of my life. Glorifying an empty
mind (even if you call it fullness) just doesn't interest me anymore.
 Although I can enjoy short periods of meditation as a break, the
thought of sitting in that state for hours as I once did seems like
such a waste of time for me.


> 
> Andrew Sachs just wrote a book about this very thing, Musicophilia.  He
> has an interesting theory about how a melody requires a person to hear
> where it comes from and how its going to resolve.  It allows patients
> with memory problems to take part in an emotional story as it unfolds.

Thanks for the book, I'll check it out. This facility had a full time
music therapist so they must feel it is important.  One interesting
thing was that they cleared out the room by singing a song about
"going home" and marching them all out.  It worked really well with
just a tinge of Orwellian nightmare for me to watch it! 

> 
> I think its very cool your playing at these facilities.  A buddy and
I > get together weekly to play jazz standards and we always talk
about > playing the nursing homes but it never seems to develop. By
the time we > get the guts to play in front of old folks we will have
to update our > repertoire.

It is one of the niche markets that I go after to make full time music
possible.  One day I'll play at a blues club, the next an elementary
school or collage and then a nursing home.  Seeing so many types of
people relate to the Delta blues from their own experience is a real
tribute to the artists who created this style of music.

I hope you do find some time to play out sometime.  There are so many
neglected audiences for real music out there.  Kids often are
subjected to such musical crap in the name of kid's music.  But they
respond really well to uncut real music, same with nursing home
residents.  I never dumb down my show for any audience.  We are all
connected through our emotions expressed in music.


> >
> Tried yr trick and was literally blown away.  Subsequently I've been
> searching for a USB device that would complete the job.

I just ordered a connection interface for my vacuum cleaner, the
"Shakira" model.  If this works out I'm gunna save a bundle on my
usual "drive thru full service" at the local highway truck stop.



> 
> s.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: I Am a Strange Loop

[Duveyoung]

Douglas Hofstadter's clear about so much and yet, yep, there goes
another baby with the bathwater.

Unless one embraces the concepts of void, absolute, transcendence,
then Douglas Hofstadter has all the answers except one.

Like Newton's physics remaining "true" but not "as true" as Einstein's
physics, Douglas Hofstadter's POV is correct but just doesn't even
begin to examine the nuances of higher states of consciousness (levels
of subtlety.) 

To put it bluntly, Douglas Hofstadter can have a thought and not
understand that it is observed by an "entity" that is
not-of-this-world, impossibly immeasurable, not there when you look,
but always there as the "I" that the ego (Douglas Hofstadter's "I")
pretends to be.  

Self as a feedback loop is a neat explanation of all-things-ego, but
cannot begin to explain mysticism's Self.

I feel sorry for Douglas Hofstadter, cuz he's such a smarty pants he's
outsmarted himself with the delusion that his axioms are
unchallengeable.  

I find him embarrassingly smug and uncomfortably full of himself.

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In Hofstadter's POV, a person's existence existence is an endless 
> loop.
> A defining event - some years ago - was the unfortunate death of his 
> young daughter. Hofstadter seems to have difficulty grappling with 
> her departure.  He states that the "entity" that made up his 
> Daughter's persona is a collection of experiences that he can 
> currently tune into. Therefore, from his materialist POV, she's still 
> present somehow.
>  There's no room at all for a Transcendent Reality in his worldview. 
> But of course, one can grok the Transcendent without believing in an 
> afterlife state; and visa versa. Here's a synopsis.:
> [note: by "consciousness" Hofstadter admits that people are 
> consciousness, but there's no room for "Being" (per MMY's definition) 
> outside of the body/mind and especially the endless loop of thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> StoryCode says: click here to see more stories like this one.
> 
> Synopsis:This is Douglas R Hofstadter's long-awaited return to the 
> themes of "Godel", "Escher", "Bach" - an original and controversial 
> view of the nature of consciousness and identity. Why do we say "I"? 
> Can thought arise out of matter? By "thought" we mean not mere 
> calculation, the manipulation of algorithms and patterns according to 
> fixed rules, but something deeper: experience, self-awareness, 
> consciousness. "I Am a Strange Loop" argues that the key to 
> understanding the level on which consciousness operates is the 
> feedback loop. After introducing the reader to simple feedback 
> systems like a flush toilet, the ever-popular thermostat and his own 
> experiments with a video camera pointed at its own monitor, he 
> Hofstadter turns to the idea of "strange loops" - feedback loops, 
> which exist on two levels of meaning, a theory, which Kurt Godel 
> employed in the mathematical statements constructed for his 
> famous "Incompleteness Theorem". Like Godel's logical statements, the 
> brain also exists on at least two levels: a deterministic level of 
> atoms and neurons, and a higher level of large mental structures we 
> call symbols. One of these symbols, perhaps the central one which 
> relates to all others in our minds, is the strange loop we call "I". 
> By the time we reach adulthood, Hofstadter writes, "I" is an endless 
> hall of mirrors, encompassing everything that has ever happened to 
> us, vast numbers of counterfactual replays of important episodes in 
> our lives, invented memories and expectations. But is it real? And if 
> so, what does it consist of? Douglas Hofstadter's first book-length 
> essay on a scientific subject since "Godel", "Escher", "Bach", "I Am 
> a Strange Loop" is a journey to the cutting edge of ideas about 
> consciousness - a bold and provocative argument that is informed by 
> the author's unique verbal whimsy and eye for the telling example. 
> Compulsively readable and endlessly thought-provoking, this is the 
> book Hofstadter's many readers have been waiting for.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla

[Sal Sunshine]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:26 AM, authfriend wrote:


The only explanation that makes any sense is that
she simply misremembered. She *did* remember that it
was a stressful, dangerous situation, and her mind
filled in the details to justify that memory. We all
do that kind of thing; we'd be abnormal if we didn't.


But "we all" aren't running for president, Judy.  And if the person  
who is can't
get it together any better than that, after it being pointed out   
over and
over, that pretty much disqualifies her right there.  It's either  
delusion, extreme stubbornness, or she's lying.  Your choice.




Given her (entirely undeserved, IMHO) reputation for
lying--which the right wing, with the eager assistance
of the media, has been feeding us for decades--the
*last* thing Hillary would be likely to do is to
deliberately tell a story that would be immediately
shown to be false.


But that *is* what she did, Judy.  And the reason, as has been  
pointed out many times in various places, is because, like a pig in  
poop, she absolutely *thrives* on
chaos situations, probably the only way she could have survived her  
marriage with any shred of dignity intact.





Reports are now being embellished (to borrow the
term du jour) to suggest that Bosnia was not really a
danger zone. Her visiting American troops on a
peacekeeping mission in a hostile environment is now
being treated as if it were a trip to the beach.


Oh, please.  Nobody's suggesting that except the idiot
who's writing this article.


Oh, really?

From the Dallas Morning News:

"Networks aired stock footage this week of Clinton's 1996
trip to a by-then-pacified Bosnia, showing the smiling
first lady and her daughter arriving at the Tuzla airbase
with the insouciance of starlets deplaning at Palm Beach
for the weekend."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stor
ies/DN-hillary_27edi.ART.State.Edition1.15c4684.html

http://tinyurl.com/34assm

Want to do a little rethink on your claim, Sal?



Unfortunately, articles like this one and others you've
been posting, Judy, are so over the top it might explain
why nobody takes them seriously.


Well, that's a pretty empty claim, Sal. Which other
articles are you referring to, and on what basis do
you suggest they're "over the top"? And on what basis
do you say "nobody takes them seriously"?

Put up or shut up.

For that matter, I don't believe I've seen you
complaining that the Hillary-hating crap Robert
has been posting is "over the top." Double standards
much?


I don't get Robert's posts.  I figured out long ago they weren't
worth my time.


If you can't tell the difference between what he's
been posting and what I've been posting in terms of
credibility, it calls your objectivity, not to
mention your discernment, into serious question.



Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept

[tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis]

TomT: Have Fun!
Barry:
> Always. You, too, I trust...
> 
> TomT:
> It seems that is our purpose or so it seems. 
Barry:
This could be interpreted as a throwaway comment
on your part, but I don't see it as one, because
I thoroughly agree. I think that fun is one of
the most misunderstood principles in the universe,
and the one that can show us the most about whether
we're as "on the path" as we think we are.

TomT:
This takes us back to a conversation we had a few years ago about
appreciation. Fun is the gross version of appreciation. I some times
use them interchangeably even though they are not. It appears to me
now, that appreciation is our finest purpose and that ultimately leads
to intimacy with it all. For me it seemed to be ever increasing
amounts and degrees of appreciation and then the intimacy kicked in
like the Saturn Booster Rocket. Things have not been the same since.
It is now a love affair with it all and it is all me. Tom

[FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:10 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > >
> > > And that sense of entitlement extends to being
> > > regarded as someone who knows what she's talking
> > > about, especially when she clearly doesn't. Hillary
> > > gets indignant and more than a little crazy when
> > > someone challenges her claims.
> > 
> > And unfortunately, advocates like Judy, who usually can advocate  
> > fairly and even reasonably, go bonkers when that happens because, 
> > I imagine, they know the challenges have merit.
> 
> It's a devotion-related phenomenon. When someone 
> has invested a lot in a political candidate (or 
> a spiritual teacher), they often become what is
> called "professional apologists" for that person.
> They think they're expressing devotion, but in
> reality by consistently justifying the unjustifi-
> able they're being *enablers* of the unjustifiable
> actions, and the people who perform them.

Translation: Neither Sal nor Barry wants to believe
that Hillary's Tuzla story was anything but a 
deliberate lie--regardless of whether the notion that
she lied makes a lick of sense. Their minds are so
tightly closed they're literally incapable of
entertaining any other possibility.

So what do they do? They shoot the messenger.

(Shall I go dig up examples of Barry's innumerable
complaints about TMers shooting the messenger?)

They shoot the messenger because there's no way
they can reasonably shoot the messenger's
arguments, which, somewhere deep in their minds,
they know have merit. Neither of them will ever
actually address the points I made.

> On the other hand, if one has spent, say, 30 or 
> more years of one's life AS a professional apologist,
> say in the context of the TM movement, there might
> be a great career waiting for them in politics. :-)
> 
> Imagine what someone who still believes that bouncing
> on one's butt is flying could do for a Hillary or a
> McCain.

Barry would like to mislead people to think this is
what I believe. But, of course, it isn't, and he
knows it.

(Oh, and as he also knows, there's no "devotion"
involved where my support of Hillary is concerned.
I'm supporting her by default because I don't think
Obama is up to the job.)

> And the best thing about spiritual professional 
> apologists, the thing that would make them so perfect
> for politics, is that they are so *ephemeral*. They
> mainly *react* to the latest perceived "insult," and
> they can't remember the fact that they've done the
> same thing several times a week for the last few 
> decades. They're "in the moment," and *can't remember*
> any other moments. This makes them perfect for deny-
> ing that their candidate has done anything wrong,
> because in all honestly they can't remember back 
> that far.  :-)

Barry appears to be suggesting this is what I do.
But, of course, I don't, and he knows it.

And he's accusing *Hillary* of lying??

The mind reels.

Once more I've had the opportunity to use my last
post of the week to expose Barry as a chronic liar
and a hypocrite. He never quite seems to get how
this works.

See you Saturday...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.

[Duveyoung]

Curtis,

I figured you'd be riled up.

Sigh.  This Zeus concept of yours is proof that you don't hear me when
I write about "throwing out spirituality with religion's bathwater."

Religions all have this dark side that's all about controlling the
masses, gaining power, getting rich, aggrandizing religion, etc.  I
find myself as offended by the actions of religions as much as I am
imagining you to be offended.

I'm on record here with my Advaita stuff, and yet you continue to
think of me as a person with a religion to jam down your throat.  Let
me spell it out to you: no religion on earth that I know of is sinless
or has a technique that I'm a gushy about, but some religions do have
some good techniques for training one's awareness to settle down into
subtleties, and that's a good thing to practice.

Spirituality is about getting jiggy with subtlety.  Period.

Honestly, I think you've got a blind spot on this issue, cuz you have
great heartedness and yet somehow will not consider your heartedness
to be, well, God's voice within. And I'm on record about "God" being
an illusion too, but this "subtle aspect of one's own brain as it
whispers to one" is something very precious -- and I think you do 
agree with that concept.  

Yeah, I've been over the top on blasting Turq's open espousal of
sexual adventuring without regard to the tender feeling level of those
he targets with his sexual objectifications, but that's what writers
do -- they exaggerate for effect.  Mountains and molehills and all
that, and I don't like being shrill all that much, honest, but
sometimes it's all I can think of to do.  So sue me.  

But as long as Turq is going to say that if he goes into a bar
regularly and is merely looking for opportunities to "hit that," then
expect more exaggerations from me about him.  He recently posted about
moving up the age-ladder to 40 year olds from 23 year olds.  Not sure
of Turq's age, but to me a 40 year old is a babe in the woods with
dozens of wide-eyed beliefs that could be leveraged easily.

Compare what it would take to get Judy or Angela or Sal, oh my, to
have a one-night-stand with what it would take to get a 40 year old
woman who's sitting in a puddle of tears about her marriage and that's
why she's at the bar unattended and vulnerable. Another drink is all
it would take for one person, but for the other three, hoo-boy, you're
not going to be pulling them off the bar stools with a shoeshine and a
smile. Exception: if they're horney as hell, all bets are off.

Anyone got a 40 year old sister they'd set up a blind date for with
Turq?  He's got the chops to work her like play doh.

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "If the War Monger or the Young Woman Predator or the Atheists who
> tossout spirituality with religion's bathwater, would just stop
> regularly glorifying in their malignancies, I wouldn't be posting my
> vitriol."
> 
> This shows such a lack of awareness of the people you are referring to
> Edg.  Really lowbrow lack of insight.  I think you can do better.
> 
> BTW I'll see you at the religious rite for Zeus tonight right?  It is
> the holiest day of the Zeus year and anyone who fails to attend will
> be disrespecting God in his truest form.  You aren't going to tell me
> that you view Zeus as a myth are you now Edg and expose your atheistic
> heart concerning the only real god?  
> 
> "Spirituality."  That word and $40 dollars will get ya blown in
> Atlantic City.  Include the word "God" and another $40 and she'll take
> you all the way around the world. Those are such powerful words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Angela,
> > 
> > Thanks for the wisdom.  I felt it.
> > 
> > I suppose we should all talk about what is allowed when it comes to
> > poetic flourishes.
> > 
> > When I "wrote up" the concept of Bush being tortured, please
> > understand that I fully knew that I was, well, being Bushy myself if I
> > really meant the words, and further, that I knew I didn't have the
> > omniscience to know how Bush should be punished -- or rewarded -- for
> > his actions, and also that I well understand how words can fly at
> > ground level under folks' radars and suddenly there they are with 
> > "yucky stuff" in their minds that are then subject to an unwanted
> > cascade of untoward emotions, imagery, and concepts.
> > 
> > I'm a writer -- writers know that Robert Frost said that one was only
> > allowed the use of the word "love" three times when one takes up the
> > job of writer, and so, I say, "Well, I got to be creative in how I
> > express a concept that's been bandied in 30 posts already."  It costs
> > me a lot of time to come up with something that's "all mine," and,
> > sorry, but it's fun for me to see if I can actually come up with yet
> > another way to express disgust for war, predation and racism.
> > 
> > If I'm kidding myself when I think I'm being "mer

[FairfieldLife] Clapton is G-d!

[cardemaister]

But do I have to know anything about him to enjoy
the best of Cream (Strange Brew, Sunshine of Your Love,
Tales of Brave Ulysses, White Room, Toad, and stuff)?

[FairfieldLife] Sharia and the TMO

[shempmcgurk]

The following is an introduction to an article on Sharia law on 
frontpagemag.com:

"How Islamic law dictates every single aspect of human life -- from 
having sex to using the bathroom."

We're not quite there yet, but wouldn't it be fair to say that the TMO 
and its various programs and declarations ("don't use cellphones or 
microwave ovens") pretty much aspires to dictate, more and more, many 
aspects of a TMer's life?

"TM is not a religion or a philosophy" doesn't really ring true 
anymore...

[FairfieldLife] Q. for Richard!

[cardemaister]

Benoît Mandelbrot seems to be of Lithuanian Jewish ancestry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot

So, is it true that some features of certain rural
dialects of Lithuanian are closer to the language
of, say, Rgveda, than any other modern Indo-European
language?

http://www.sverigeturism.se/smorgasbord/smorgasbord/image/first/scandinavia.gif