[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > Sounds like A Commandment, huh? Some here on FFL would have us believe it is. > I can understand if we were at the Pentagon or something, but this is FFL. In > any case, since this shrill refrain has been heard several times on here > lately, I thought I'd explore the possibilities why: > > 1. Fear of exploitation. While this is something to look out for when someone > is asking for money or anything else, this is not the case here on FFL. So > I'm ruling this one out early. Besides no one who talks about enlightenment > or self realization here ever asks for anything, even agreement - lol. It is > more about the discussion, which some apparently cannot tolerate. > > 2. Sour grapes. Could be. All of us here are on some path for personal > development, which at some point contained the word "enlightenment". So if it > isn't happening for some, perhaps they find it much more preferable if it is > not discussed at all. (hint: wrong forum ). > > 3. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment. Possibly. Not a lot of > control to exert when you learn that enlightenment is a self identified > condition, with no outside agency needed for confirmation. Kind of mind > blowing to some. No control to exert. Perhaps this is why some people's need > to shut down others talking about being enlightened is increasing on FFL. It > is the only control they have left: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself > Enlightened - LOL. > > 4. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment, part 2. "I meditated too > much once and was in Cosmic Consciousness for like two weeks. So what?". > That's like saying backing out of the driveway is the same as driving > cross-country. > > 5. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment, part 3. "I think > enlightenment is possible, just not by you. I don't judge you enlightened > enough by my standards as I see them to allow you to be enlightened in my > eyes, according to me". Speaks for itself. > > 6. Doesn't give a shit about enlightenment. Nah, that's for the people who > don't ever talk about it. `Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened' > screams interest in enlightenment, doesn't it? > > Enlightenment is for the masses. Get used to it. :-) Nice. And there are many other reasons some here feel threatened by someone claiming enlightenment, some of which you briefly mentioned. Mainly it's obvious that the majority here are former TM'ers who have stopped the practise. When someone who never stopped but rather patiently continued TM claims enlightenment it reminds them of all the lost years, and their failure to take one great pratice into frutition. It's an utter failure for them obviously, one very frustrating experience indeed and one which explains the close to anger anyone with a TM-background receives from certain participants on this forum.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree > > > > that you were born through your mother who conceived you > > > > with your father? As such, you as a physical being had > > > > a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would agree with > > > > the first premise.> > > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > Exactly. "Because humans come into existence because > > someone fucked someone else, the universe must have > > also come into existence the same way." That is > > *exactly* the projection-reasoning I described. > > > > John simply cannot *conceive* of a universe that > > didn't have a beginning. So he's unable to address > > the fact that his point #2 is an *assumption*, and > > quite possibly an invalid one. If it *is* an invalid > > assumption, then the whole line of reasoning falls > > apart. > > > > On one level he's trying to suggest "As below, so > > above." That is, "Because humans born and die, the > > universe has to as well." > > > > My bet is that he will be completely unable to say > > that an eternal, never-created universe is even a > > *possibility*. And why? Because Bronze-age teachers > > he considers infallible made up a bunch of creation > > myths and he believes they're not only true, but > > Truth. > > > > Me, I prefer to think for myself. > > Barry, > > Don't give us the run-around. Please, answer the question > that I posed? You first. I asked my question of you first, after all. You *dodging* it is the "run-around." All you have to do is answer the question of "Was the universe 'created,' in the sense that there was a first creation,' and that previous to that 'first creation' moment it did not exist?" This requires only a simple Yes or No answer. My corollary question, which you seem to be doing every- thing in your power to avoid, is, "Do you consider it *possible* that the universe is eternal and never- created?" This also requires only a Yes or No answer. > Were you born to a human mother or not? If yes, then > you had a beginning and a cause. Isn't that so? If so, so what? As both Curtis and I have pointed out, you are attempting to practice inductive reasoning. You are trying to claim "As below, so above," and attempting to claim that because human beings may have a cause and thus a "birth" or beginning, so too does the universe. I do not hold this to be true. My intuition tells me that the universe has always been, is now, and will always be, both in its manifest and unmanifest states. There has never been a time when it was not. Therefore any argument that pins its conclusion on "There must have been a first creation" is fallacious and a bunch of hooey. YMMV. It's *OK* for you to say that you believe in a first creation. It's *OK* for you to say that you cannot conceive of any other situation. It's even *OK* for you to say that you believe this because you hold certain old books to be the Absolute Truth and *they* said there was a first creation. What is not so OK is you dodging the real issue and claiming that I'm the one doing it. If you want an answer to your question, you have to answer mine first. End of story. It's not a lot to ask -- if I've gotten your beliefs right from what you've posted in the past, all it'll require from you is one Yes and one No, in that order. :-) > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > > > > that the universe was never created, that it > > > > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > > > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > > > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > > > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > > > > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > > > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > > > > > > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > > > > > lack of understanding of their own birth a
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dark Lord
Jesus called this entity: 'A murderer since the beginning of time!' This entity is the same one that possessed Hitler and bin Laden and the other ones that are called the 'Sons of Darkenss'... This is the time prophesized as the time when: 'The 'Sons of Light' would challenge the 'Sons of Darkness'... And so it is... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > > Yes I know him well. I keep his secret close to my heart - unlike > bitches that whore themselves. He is the supreme lover of God, exiled > though he is. > > FWIW his love is more pure and clear than any human can bear and > still remain human. He has lost the "love of his life" yet > remains enthralled by the taste of the last command from the "One > Most High". > > "Leave!" > > > This was the last command he received from "the One". If we > could experience such love we would dissolve and lose all identity. > > Don't believe the X-gen bullshit you've been fed. His troth is > more faithful than any human promises could be. His love of the > "Most High" is the penultimate among all created beings. > > Let us wish for just a taste of such love. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > emptybill, > > > > Are you saying that you had a revelation from the Dark Angel himself? > How do we know you're not hallucinating? Do you a verifiable source > that we can review? > > > > JR > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote: > > > > Puleeez. > > > > > > There are no fairies flitting around here to describe hell or > heaven. > > > How would they know anyway? > > > > > > And who else would have told me about the blessed rain except > Himself ... the dark angel, the lord of wrath, the secret lover of god? > > > > > > .. > > >
[FairfieldLife] YogaH karmasu kaushalam!
In the spring of 2009, started buying shares of the Finnish company M-real. http://www.m-real.com/company/Mrealinbrief/Pages/Default.aspx http://www.m-real.com/investors/shareinformation/Pages/Shareprice.aspx When I recently sold my last M-real B-shares, my total profit became about 100 000 EUR (USD ~150 000). That reminded me of BG II 50, the last phrase, or whatever: yogaH karmasu[1] kaushalam (yoga [is] skill in action). >From Maharishi's comment: Bondage certainly lies in the field of action, but it is not born of action: it is born of the weakness of the actor. -- Then follows the example of a small business man: When a small business man incurs a loss, his mind is profoundly affected by it. -- If you are interested, read more on page 142 of the Penguin paperpack, or somesuch! 1. locative *plural* from 'karma'
[FairfieldLife] The Dark Lord
Yes I know him well. I keep his secret close to my heart - unlike bitches that whore themselves. He is the supreme lover of God, exiled though he is. FWIW his love is more pure and clear than any human can bear and still remain human. He has lost the "love of his life" yet remains enthralled by the taste of the last command from the "One Most High". "Leave!" This was the last command he received from "the One". If we could experience such love we would dissolve and lose all identity. Don't believe the X-gen bullshit you've been fed. His troth is more faithful than any human promises could be. His love of the "Most High" is the penultimate among all created beings. Let us wish for just a taste of such love. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > emptybill, > > Are you saying that you had a revelation from the Dark Angel himself? How do we know you're not hallucinating? Do you a verifiable source that we can review? > > JR > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote: > > Puleeez. > > > > There are no fairies flitting around here to describe hell or heaven. > > How would they know anyway? > > > > And who else would have told me about the blessed rain except Himself ... the dark angel, the lord of wrath, the secret lover of god? > > > > .. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
Yifu, > 1.> The premises and statements below (1, 2, 3, basically) = "The Cosmological Argument" [Cf. Wiki, with "objections and counterarguments"]. (has serious flaws). > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument> You are quoting your sources from the opponents of KCA. You have not analyzed it yourself. 2.> Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude that a "Deity" created the Universe, which One, YHVH? Why not the Mormon God, or the Scientology God.> IMO, the Supreme Being is not limited to any human religions. 3.> ... > Such arguments are quite old, thousands of years; with renewed vigor in the > Midieval period given by St. Thomas Aquinas. > ... The KCA is still valid today. As of now, none of the scientific theories about the universe has been proved. 4.> In recent decades, the hottest new hypothesis relates to BRANES (sheets of pre-existing or eternal membranes of a 2-D nature that become enfolded to materialize (in the Big Bang fashion), new "universes" of which ours is one possible universe in the Meta-Universe.> This theory is still speculation. Specifically, how can scientists prove that there's another brane next to our universe? 5.> ... > Shortcoming with the Brane hypothesis is testability in the lab, apart from > the pure mathematics of String Theory upon which it's based.> I agree with you here. 6.> ... > 2 important corollaries to Branes are (1) ll dimensional existence, and (2) > Multiple Worlds or "Many Worlds".> These are speculations with no definite proof of existence. As of now, scientists have not found the existence of the 5th dimension. If that is so, how can they prove the other higher dimensions? 7.> However, the net result of the 3 combined elements: 1. Branes (2-D sheets) which collide, producing Big Bangs, 2. the need for multiple (eleven) dimensions, and 3. The Many Worlds hypothesis of existence in which infinite numbers of variants of entities may exist in other universes. > ... > The later is constrained by probabilistic considerations: i.e. there's a high > probability we live in a high probability unvierse. You are stating the current state of SPECULATIONS. There are no scientific proofs for these assertions. JR > > > > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were > > > > > > born through your mother who conceived you with your father? As > > > > > > such, you as a physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then > > > > > > you would agree with the first premise.> > > > > > > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > > > > > Please, explain why you think the first premise is incorrect. Or, why > > > > my example is incorrect. > > > > > > Hey John, > > > > > > Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly > > > discussion with you having been challenged! > > > > > > I was pointing out that you were going from a single instance to support > > > the assertion of a universal and that this is a fallacious form of > > > reasoning. Just because we have a biological cause we can't > > > automatically infer that a principle of universal causation exists. In > > > the case of existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a cause. > > > > > > But I'll hang with the point if you are interested. Have I missed > > > something? > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > You're jumping ahead of the game. We're still trying to get a common > > understanding of the first premise: > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. > > > > Do you agree with this premise or not? I used a human example to > > illustrate the point. If you don't agree, why not? > > > > We can discuss the other two premises after this premise is resolved. > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were > > > > > > born through your mother who conceived you with your father? As > > > > > > such, you as a physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then > > > > > > you would agree with the first premise.> > > > > > > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > > > > > Please, explain why you think the first premise is incorrect. Or, why > > > > my example is incorrect. > > > > > > Hey John, > > > > > > Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly > > > discussion with you having been challenged! > > > > > > I was pointing out that you were going from a single instance to support > > > the assertion of a universal and that this is a fallacious form of > > > reasoning. Just because we have a biological cause we can't > > > automatically infer that a principle of universal causation exists. In > > > the case of existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a cause. > > > > > > But I'll hang with the point if you are interested. Have I missed > > > something? > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > You're jumping ahead of the game. We're still trying to get a common > > understanding of the first premise: > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. > > > > Do you agree with this premise or not? > Curtis, 1.> It sounds like a premise that requires a context to be useful. I'm not sure this is even a part of material physics understanding. And I don't know what you mean by cause in this context. Plus you have an embedded premise by including "begins".> The KCA can be discussed using logic and reason. The latest developments in physics and cosmology can be used in the discussion. However, IMO, these latest developments have not be proven or agreed to by all the experts in the field. As such, actual science has a more rigorous criteria for acceptance of proof. Specifically, the Big Bang Theory still has not been proved, although it is the most widely accepted cosmological model to describe the universe. Also, science does not have a method as of date to prove any speculations relating to what happened before the Big Bang. 2.> I think you are trying to have a technical discussion within a casual context. So I suppose I am being invited to wing it. Is this the from William Lane Craig? If so then his "intuitive" start has problems.> Yes, Dr. Craig has been credited in developing the KCA. However, he mentioned that an Arab philosopher by the name of Al-Ghazali has thought of these premises. Also, he said that the ontological argument of Aquinas plays a major role in the KCA as well. 3.> First when matter of the density of pre big bang transforms into the matter that we know and love (especially when it forms breast tissue) then the whole intuitive concept of causation is irrelevant. We are talking about a state of matter that is literally inconceivable. So applying our intuitive concepts is dead on arrival. We don't know why it blew but we are in no position to speculate at this stage of human knowledge. It is a fallacious presupposition to assume the need for a cause for matter to transform from a state we know little about into a state we know a little more about. But just like a physicist once told me, the biggest hurdle in studying quantum mechanics is ridding our tendency to imagine that our intuition of how things should behave is helpful. If we are discussing the origins of the universe we are not working in a realm where our intuition is reliable. We suck at anything wy bigger or smaller than our sensory world. And there is no philosophical necessity for causation at this level. There just isn't. This idea is being asserted out of thin air as a first premis
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" whynotnow7@ wrote: > > > > Interesting stuff - Why must there be an incompatibility between the two ideas? The one premise is that birth of the universe began, and the other, that the universe has always been. > > This is going way over my head but as I understand it in my simplistic dumbed down version, there was a time before the big bang Ah ha!. You've done it Curtis. You have proved John's point with Barry's own words. It is a small bang that creates human life, but it is the big bang that creates the universe. Case closed! when all the matter currently found in the universe was compressed into a singularity point of inconceivable density. The explosion of the big bang unpacked it and allowed the current forms of matter we see to today to develop and interact in time and space. > > There is no philosophical reason for there to be a cause of that initial singularity of whatever the hell physicists call that pre-big bang thing. (There are groans across the Internet by astro-geo-physicists, but one or two philosophers tipped their bourbon in my direction hopefully. > > > > > I started thinking about a model that satisfies both requirements, and imagined a rubber band stretched between two infinite points, and then twisting it, like winding up a balsa wood glider. The rubber band is our universe. > > > > If the twisted rubber band is then seen in profile, 2D, it appears to go through a series of expansions and contractions, births and deaths, but if we look at it in 3D, we can see that although the energy and matter appear concentrated at regular intervals, it is always the same amount of energy and matter as we progress along the length of the twisted rubber band. > > > > How does the rubber band get twisted? Perhaps all of the rotational torque of all of the planets and stars and galaxies is enough to slowly "rotisserate" the universe over the ages, spiraling through time - who knows? > > I think you are trying to speculate in an area that requires more math training than I have to follow as well as more physics. I can follow the physics poetry attempted by people who try to present a common man version of this level of physics but I know that I don't have a clue really. It requires a different type of mind than I have to start with and then a lifetime of dedicated study in a direction that I would sooner replace with jabbing my eye with a fork. > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were born through your mother who conceived you with your father? As such, you as a physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would agree with the first premise.> > > > > > > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > > > > > Please, explain why you think the first premise is incorrect. Or, why my example is incorrect. > > > > > > Hey John, > > > > > > Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly discussion with you having been challenged! > > > > > > I was pointing out that you were going from a single instance to support the assertion of a universal and that this is a fallacious form of reasoning. Just because we have a biological cause we can't automatically infer that a principle of universal causation exists. In the case of existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a cause. > > > > > > But I'll hang with the point if you are interested. Have I missed something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > > > > > was "created," in the sense that
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > Enlightenment is for the masses. Get used to it. :-) > Now THAT could be the start of a new TM marketing campaign. "Got Enlightenment?"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses
assholes, pie holes. what's the diff among friends --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > But it is a group of assholes. :) > > On May 4, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Peter wrote: > > Brian, this is far, far from a group of true believers! > > --- On Wed, 5/4/11, brianbmurr brianbmurr@... wrote: > > > From: brianbmurr brianbmurr@... > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 2:23 PM > > I am very sorry for my second post to > > this forum and want to thank those that overlooked my post > > and responded with info about spirituality in Fairfield. > > > > The only excuse I can provide is that I had wrongly pegged > > this forum as a group of true believers. I guess I was just > > looking for an excuse to flame out on the TB crowd. > > > > Many of your informative posts made it evident that I was > > wrong and you correctly labeled me an asshole. I wrongly > > judged you and you returned the favor by labeling me. > > > > Thanks very much for the info. > > > > I think the TMO is at a crossroads. One of 2 things will > > happen: > > > > 1. They will collapse under their own weight of lies, > > deceit, false research, and extravagant claims (I was at MIU > > when the first "study" came out showing increased longevity. > > MIU made posters and started a whole new slogan of > > immortality.a bit of a stretch imo:) > > > > If/when they collapse, I was feeling out what other > > spiritual endeavors are supported by the FF community. Buck, > > thanks for that link. > > > > 2. They will be forced to evolve and start doing honest > > research and open it up to legitimate scientific > > collaboration on consciousness research, which is becoming > > really hot right now. Sadly, they could have been at the > > forefront of a huge thrust of current research if they did > > not have such a closed ideology from the start. That is why > > Larry Domash left. That is why Marvin Minsky from MIT ripped > > them a new a-hole in an on campus interview that I was at. > > That tape will never see the light of day. > > > > Again, sorry for misjudging this group!!! > > > > Brian > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Changing the Osama Narrative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > > > Deathers aren't the only ones who want to see > > > Osama's photos and you're right there's no > > > convincing them no matter what... > > > Bhairitu: > > Sometimes they are things you can't even talk > > about in fear... > > > You sound really scared. > > "There are known knowns; there are things we know we > know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is > to say we know there are some things we do not know. > > But there are also unknown unknowns the ones we > don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld > And then there are statistics
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > But as, by definition, an infinite series can never > be traversed, how could we be here 'now'? > Ask Ram Das. I think he wrote a book about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses
Brian, we offer a conditional acceptance of your apology. However, for this infraction to be totally absolved we will require that you review of the first half of the "Collected Papers Volume I", and report on what you feel are the corroborated and uncorroborated points according to your own experience. The report should be not less than 3000 words, and not more than 5000. Thank you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > I am very sorry for my second post to this forum and want to thank those that overlooked my post and responded with info about spirituality in Fairfield. > > The only excuse I can provide is that I had wrongly pegged this forum as a group of true believers. I guess I was just looking for an excuse to flame out on the TB crowd. > > Many of your informative posts made it evident that I was wrong and you correctly labeled me an asshole. I wrongly judged you and you returned the favor by labeling me. > > Thanks very much for the info. > > I think the TMO is at a crossroads. One of 2 things will happen: > > 1. They will collapse under their own weight of lies, deceit, false research, and extravagant claims (I was at MIU when the first "study" came out showing increased longevity. MIU made posters and started a whole new slogan of immortality.a bit of a stretch imo:) > > If/when they collapse, I was feeling out what other spiritual endeavors are supported by the FF community. Buck, thanks for that link. > > 2. They will be forced to evolve and start doing honest research and open it up to legitimate scientific collaboration on consciousness research, which is becoming really hot right now. Sadly, they could have been at the forefront of a huge thrust of current research if they did not have such a closed ideology from the start. That is why Larry Domash left. That is why Marvin Minsky from MIT ripped them a new a-hole in an on campus interview that I was at. That tape will never see the light of day. > > Again, sorry for misjudging this group!!! > > Brian >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
The premises and statements below (1, 2, 3, basically) = "The Cosmological Argument" [Cf. Wiki, with "objections and counterarguments"]. (has serious flaws). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument ... Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude that a "Deity" created the Universe, which One, YHVH? Why not the Mormon God, or the Scientology God. ... Such arguments are quite old, thousands of years; with renewed vigor in the Midieval period given by St. Thomas Aquinas. ... In recent decades, the hottest new hypothesis relates to BRANES (sheets of pre-existing or eternal membranes of a 2-D nature that become enfolded to materialize (in the Big Bang fashion), new "universes" of which ours is one possible universe in the Meta-Universe. ... Shortcoming with the Brane hypothesis is testability in the lab, apart from the pure mathematics of String Theory upon which it's based. ... 2 important corollaries to Branes are (1) ll dimensional existence, and (2) Multiple Worlds or "Many Worlds". ... However, the net result of the 3 combined elements: 1. Branes (2-D sheets) which collide, producing Big Bangs, 2. the need for multiple (eleven) dimensions, and 3. The Many Worlds hypothesis of existence in which infinite numbers of variants of entities may exist in other universes. ... The later is constrained by probabilistic considerations: i.e. there's a high probability we live in a high probability unvierse. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were > > > > > born through your mother who conceived you with your father? As > > > > > such, you as a physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then > > > > > you would agree with the first premise.> > > > > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > > > Please, explain why you think the first premise is incorrect. Or, why my > > > example is incorrect. > > > > Hey John, > > > > Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly discussion > > with you having been challenged! > > > > I was pointing out that you were going from a single instance to support > > the assertion of a universal and that this is a fallacious form of > > reasoning. Just because we have a biological cause we can't automatically > > infer that a principle of universal causation exists. In the case of > > existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a cause. > > > > But I'll hang with the point if you are interested. Have I missed > > something? > > > > Curtis, > > You're jumping ahead of the game. We're still trying to get a common > understanding of the first premise: > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. > > Do you agree with this premise or not? I used a human example to illustrate > the point. If you don't agree, why not? > > We can discuss the other two premises after this premise is resolved. > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > > > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > > > > > that the universe was never created, that it > > > > > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > > > > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > > > > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > > > > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > > > > > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > > > > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > > > > > > > > > > > My point is
[FairfieldLife] 'God Bless America!'
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Place for Group Meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group meditation evidently drags > > consciousness out of darkness: > > > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group practice of > > meditation creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates > > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence, > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and quality of > > life." > > > > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators in the domes, the > larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at 7:30AM and 5:00PM. A > longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or later. > > Of course individual times vary some. But it is amazing grace every morning > and evening around here by virtue of the larger meditating community here. > > -Buck > Lot of people do a second meditation starting around 10:30AM too. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" yifuxero@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31: > > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by the Vikings], > > there was a 24/7 prayer watch of as many as 3,000 people in Bangor, > > Ireland, that transformed the country and took the gospel to other > > European nations". > > > > http://www.prayerhouse.co.za/pdf/BANGOR,_555_AD.pdf > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > > > Brian, this is far, far from a group of true believers! > > > > Brian, I'm one of the few meditator true believers here. I hope you'll move > to join us in Fairfield. It's a great place to meditate. > > > -Buck > an old and conservative meditator in FF > You know Brian, it's a town full of meditators. Ecumenically between all the meditation groups and satsangs, we are mostly all seated and starting meditation no later than 7:35AM and 5:05PM to allow for a full meditation and settled and coherent start. Do a minimum of an hour and quarter meditation. Communally recommended up to two and a quarter hours. Follow with half hour rest after wards. It's a fabulous place spiritually. The science is showing well the very important place of group meditation in the world now. I hope you can come along and help pick up the slack of some of these other people here who don't even meditate. With Warm Regards from Fairfield, -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Place for Group Meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group meditation evidently drags > consciousness out of darkness: > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group practice of > meditation creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence, > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and quality of > life." > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators in the domes, the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at 7:30AM and 5:00PM. A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or later. Of course individual times vary some. But it is amazing grace every morning and evening around here by virtue of the larger meditating community here. -Buck > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" yifuxero@ wrote: > > > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31: > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by the Vikings], > there was a 24/7 prayer watch of as many as 3,000 people in Bangor, > Ireland, that transformed the country and took the gospel to other > European nations". > > > http://www.prayerhouse.co.za/pdf/BANGOR,_555_AD.pdf > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > Brian, this is far, far from a group of true believers! > Brian, I'm one of the few meditator true believers here. I hope you'll move to join us in Fairfield. It's a great place to meditate. -Buck an old and conservative meditator in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
Yeah, I have heard the big bang theory. I don't have a problem with it, though if someone wants to believe in an eternal model of stuff going on, that is OK too. I figure I can't rule out either possibility, so I'll accept 'em both, unless it somehow increases my taxes... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > Interesting stuff - Why must there be an incompatibility between the two > > ideas? The one premise is that birth of the universe began, and the other, > > that the universe has always been. > > This is going way over my head but as I understand it in my simplistic dumbed > down version, there was a time before the big bang when all the matter > currently found in the universe was compressed into a singularity point of > inconceivable density. The explosion of the big bang unpacked it and allowed > the current forms of matter we see to today to develop and interact in time > and space. > > There is no philosophical reason for there to be a cause of that initial > singularity of whatever the hell physicists call that pre-big bang thing. > (There are groans across the Internet by astro-geo-physicists, but one or two > philosophers tipped their bourbon in my direction hopefully. > > > > > I started thinking about a model that satisfies both requirements, and > > imagined a rubber band stretched between two infinite points, and then > > twisting it, like winding up a balsa wood glider. The rubber band is our > > universe. > > > > If the twisted rubber band is then seen in profile, 2D, it appears to go > > through a series of expansions and contractions, births and deaths, but if > > we look at it in 3D, we can see that although the energy and matter appear > > concentrated at regular intervals, it is always the same amount of energy > > and matter as we progress along the length of the twisted rubber band. > > > > How does the rubber band get twisted? Perhaps all of the rotational torque > > of all of the planets and stars and galaxies is enough to slowly > > "rotisserate" the universe over the ages, spiraling through time - who > > knows? > > I think you are trying to speculate in an area that requires more math > training than I have to follow as well as more physics. I can follow the > physics poetry attempted by people who try to present a common man version of > this level of physics but I know that I don't have a clue really. It > requires a different type of mind than I have to start with and then a > lifetime of dedicated study in a direction that I would sooner replace with > jabbing my eye with a fork. > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were > > > > > > born through your mother who conceived you with your father? As > > > > > > such, you as a physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then > > > > > > you would agree with the first premise.> > > > > > > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > > > > > Please, explain why you think the first premise is incorrect. Or, why > > > > my example is incorrect. > > > > > > Hey John, > > > > > > Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly > > > discussion with you having been challenged! > > > > > > I was pointing out that you were going from a single instance to support > > > the assertion of a universal and that this is a fallacious form of > > > reasoning. Just because we have a biological cause we can't > > > automatically infer that a principle of universal causation exists. In > > > the case of existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a cause. > > > > > > But I'll hang with the point if you are interested. Have I missed > > > something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were > > > > > born through your mother who conceived you with your father? As > > > > > such, you as a physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then > > > > > you would agree with the first premise.> > > > > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > > > Please, explain why you think the first premise is incorrect. Or, why my > > > example is incorrect. > > > > Hey John, > > > > Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly discussion > > with you having been challenged! > > > > I was pointing out that you were going from a single instance to support > > the assertion of a universal and that this is a fallacious form of > > reasoning. Just because we have a biological cause we can't automatically > > infer that a principle of universal causation exists. In the case of > > existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a cause. > > > > But I'll hang with the point if you are interested. Have I missed > > something? > > > > Curtis, > > You're jumping ahead of the game. We're still trying to get a common > understanding of the first premise: > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. > > Do you agree with this premise or not? It sounds like a premise that requires a context to be useful. I'm not sure this is even a part of material physics understanding. And I don't know what you mean by cause in this context. Plus you have an embedded premise by including "begins". I think you are trying to have a technical discussion within a casual context. So I suppose I am being invited to wing it. Is this the from William Lane Craig? If so then his "intuitive" start has problems. First when matter of the density of pre big bang transforms into the matter that we know and love (especially when it forms breast tissue) then the whole intuitive concept of causation is irrelevant. We are talking about a state of matter that is literally inconceivable. So applying our intuitive concepts is dead on arrival. We don't know why it blew but we are in no position to speculate at this stage of human knowledge. It is a fallacious presupposition to assume the need for a cause for matter to transform from a state we know little about into a state we know a little more about. But just like a physicist once told me, the biggest hurdle in studying quantum mechanics is ridding our tendency to imagine that our intuition of how things should behave is helpful. If we are discussing the origins of the universe we are not working in a realm where our intuition is reliable. We suck at anything wy bigger or smaller than our sensory world. And there is no philosophical necessity for causation at this level. There just isn't. This idea is being asserted out of thin air as a first premise when in face it is riddled with assumptions about reality at a level that we can't reasonably discuss. < I used a human example to illustrate the point.> I believe in the structure of your presentation the human example was uses as a specific case which was used in faulty inductive reasoning as a support for an unsupported assertion. In Craig's work "Reasonable Faith" the start is based on what is claimed to be "obviously true". But as I discussed "obvious" to a sensory dependent creature is misleading at scales big and small. < If you don't agree, why not?> This is a classic case of mixing up logical levels. The origin of the universe is under no obligation to conform to our sensory based language. That is why the biggest advances at this level are made through the language of mathematics. And even if you could do all the heavy lifting of proving a principle that there HAD to be a cause, you would be light years (another completely counter-intuitive scale) from proving what that might be. It is the same jump from "I saw a UFO" To "I saw a spaceship fr
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
emptybill, Are you saying that you had a revelation from the Dark Angel himself? How do we know you're not hallucinating? Do you a verifiable source that we can review? JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > > Puleeez. > > There are no fairies flitting around here to describe hell or heaven. > How would they know anyway? > > And who else would have told me about the blessed rain except Himself > ... the dark angel, the lord of wrath, the secret lover of god? > > .. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > How do you know what you're saying is true? It sounds like you're > telling us fairy tales bent to your own satisfation. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Your views of Heaven and Hell are much too truncated. Don't you > > > realize that neither Heaven nor Hell is a simple projection of human > > > desires and fears? > > > > > > Heaven is whatever good you can imagine. Hell, though, is not that > place > > > of torment you might visualize from past artwork or cinema. > > > > > > For instance, it actually rains in Hell. Bet they didn't tell you > > > that in church or on long rounding! > > > > > > Christian types I've discussed this with insist that this > > > "rain" is the tears of the Saints weeping at the many sins of > > > Hell's denizens. Of course, I dismiss such platitudes, coated as > > > they are with sentimental piety. I point out that this "falling > > > rain" which cools everyone is actually the effluence from the Saints > > > in Heaven as they spit at the sinners in Hell. The good and holy > Saints > > > hate our sins so much they show their distaste this way. However, > > > because they are so holy with God's grace, this spittle down-flow is > > > experienced as moments of sweetness. > > > > > > Now isn't that wonderful? > > > > > > Of course, it doesn't last long because soon come whole armies of > > > avenging angels, hacking and eviscerating all those Hell beings to > > > demonstrate God's righteous wrath. > > > > > > Then, glory of glories, all the Hell beings are reborn in the same > place > > > to do it again. > > > > > > The only escape? Join the opponents of God to oppose Him and His > will. > > > After all, the chief opponent of God is still the greatest angel and > > > still his greatest lover. How else to get the beloved's attention > > > better than being opposed to Him? > > > > > > Yep, you don't learn this in Sunday school. > > > > .. > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were > > > > born through your mother who conceived you with your father? As such, > > > > you as a physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would > > > > agree with the first premise.> > > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > Please, explain why you think the first premise is incorrect. Or, why my > > example is incorrect. > > Hey John, > > Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly discussion > with you having been challenged! > > I was pointing out that you were going from a single instance to support the > assertion of a universal and that this is a fallacious form of reasoning. > Just because we have a biological cause we can't automatically infer that a > principle of universal causation exists. In the case of existence itself, it > may have primacy without needing a cause. > > But I'll hang with the point if you are interested. Have I missed something? > Curtis, You're jumping ahead of the game. We're still trying to get a common understanding of the first premise: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Do you agree with this premise or not? I used a human example to illustrate the point. If you don't agree, why not? We can discuss the other two premises after this premise is resolved. JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > > > > that the universe was never created, that it > > > > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > > > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > > > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > > > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > > > > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > > > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > > > > > > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > > > > > lack of understanding of their own birth and > > > > > death, project a similar birth and death onto > > > > > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't > > > > > make it so. > > > > > > > > > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF > > > > > the universe is eternal, and was never "created," > > > > > then this whole argument is hooey. > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam > > > > > > > > Cosmological > > > > > > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > > > > > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > > > > > > > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > > > > > > > and never-created? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > > > > > > > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > > > > > > > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > > > > > > > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > > > > > > > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Apr 30 00:00:00 2011 End Date (UTC): Sat May 07 00:00:00 2011 511 messages as of (UTC) Thu May 05 00:07:25 2011 50 authfriend 41 Buck 40 turquoiseb 29 whynotnow7 26 Mike Dixon 25 tartbrain 24 seventhray1 24 WillyTex 22 Ravi Yogi 21 curtisdeltablues 21 Bhairitu 18 Vaj 17 cardemaister 14 Tom Pall 14 Sal Sunshine 13 Yifu 11 raunchydog 11 Rick Archer 10 John 9 Peter 8 nablusoss1008 8 emptybill 7 merudanda 7 Alex Stanley 6 merlin 5 PaliGap 4 wayback71 4 shanti2218411 3 brianbmurr 3 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 3 Peter L Sutphen 2 Yifu Xero 2 Robert 2 "do.rflex" 1 ultrarishi 1 pranamoocher 1 martyboi 1 feste37 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 1 Duveyoung 1 Brian Murray Posters: 41 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > Interesting stuff - Why must there be an incompatibility between the two > ideas? The one premise is that birth of the universe began, and the other, > that the universe has always been. This is going way over my head but as I understand it in my simplistic dumbed down version, there was a time before the big bang when all the matter currently found in the universe was compressed into a singularity point of inconceivable density. The explosion of the big bang unpacked it and allowed the current forms of matter we see to today to develop and interact in time and space. There is no philosophical reason for there to be a cause of that initial singularity of whatever the hell physicists call that pre-big bang thing. (There are groans across the Internet by astro-geo-physicists, but one or two philosophers tipped their bourbon in my direction hopefully. > > I started thinking about a model that satisfies both requirements, and > imagined a rubber band stretched between two infinite points, and then > twisting it, like winding up a balsa wood glider. The rubber band is our > universe. > > If the twisted rubber band is then seen in profile, 2D, it appears to go > through a series of expansions and contractions, births and deaths, but if we > look at it in 3D, we can see that although the energy and matter appear > concentrated at regular intervals, it is always the same amount of energy and > matter as we progress along the length of the twisted rubber band. > > How does the rubber band get twisted? Perhaps all of the rotational torque of > all of the planets and stars and galaxies is enough to slowly "rotisserate" > the universe over the ages, spiraling through time - who knows? I think you are trying to speculate in an area that requires more math training than I have to follow as well as more physics. I can follow the physics poetry attempted by people who try to present a common man version of this level of physics but I know that I don't have a clue really. It requires a different type of mind than I have to start with and then a lifetime of dedicated study in a direction that I would sooner replace with jabbing my eye with a fork. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were > > > > > born through your mother who conceived you with your father? As > > > > > such, you as a physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then > > > > > you would agree with the first premise.> > > > > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > > > Please, explain why you think the first premise is incorrect. Or, why my > > > example is incorrect. > > > > Hey John, > > > > Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly discussion > > with you having been challenged! > > > > I was pointing out that you were going from a single instance to support > > the assertion of a universal and that this is a fallacious form of > > reasoning. Just because we have a biological cause we can't automatically > > infer that a principle of universal causation exists. In the case of > > existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a cause. > > > > But I'll hang with the point if you are interested. Have I missed > > something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > > > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > > > > > that the universe was never created, that it > > > > > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > > > > > There has never been a time
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
Interesting stuff - Why must there be an incompatibility between the two ideas? The one premise is that birth of the universe began, and the other, that the universe has always been. I started thinking about a model that satisfies both requirements, and imagined a rubber band stretched between two infinite points, and then twisting it, like winding up a balsa wood glider. The rubber band is our universe. If the twisted rubber band is then seen in profile, 2D, it appears to go through a series of expansions and contractions, births and deaths, but if we look at it in 3D, we can see that although the energy and matter appear concentrated at regular intervals, it is always the same amount of energy and matter as we progress along the length of the twisted rubber band. How does the rubber band get twisted? Perhaps all of the rotational torque of all of the planets and stars and galaxies is enough to slowly "rotisserate" the universe over the ages, spiraling through time - who knows? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were > > > > born through your mother who conceived you with your father? As such, > > > > you as a physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would > > > > agree with the first premise.> > > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > > > > Curtis, > > > > Please, explain why you think the first premise is incorrect. Or, why my > > example is incorrect. > > Hey John, > > Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly discussion > with you having been challenged! > > I was pointing out that you were going from a single instance to support the > assertion of a universal and that this is a fallacious form of reasoning. > Just because we have a biological cause we can't automatically infer that a > principle of universal causation exists. In the case of existence itself, it > may have primacy without needing a cause. > > But I'll hang with the point if you are interested. Have I missed something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > > > > that the universe was never created, that it > > > > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > > > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > > > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > > > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > > > > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > > > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > > > > > > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > > > > > lack of understanding of their own birth and > > > > > death, project a similar birth and death onto > > > > > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't > > > > > make it so. > > > > > > > > > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF > > > > > the universe is eternal, and was never "created," > > > > > then this whole argument is hooey. > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam > > > > > > > > Cosmological > > > > > > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > > > > > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > > > > > > > being able to conceive of the un
[FairfieldLife] Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!
Sounds like A Commandment, huh? Some here on FFL would have us believe it is. I can understand if we were at the Pentagon or something, but this is FFL. In any case, since this shrill refrain has been heard several times on here lately, I thought I'd explore the possibilities why: 1. Fear of exploitation. While this is something to look out for when someone is asking for money or anything else, this is not the case here on FFL. So I'm ruling this one out early. Besides no one who talks about enlightenment or self realization here ever asks for anything, even agreement - lol. It is more about the discussion, which some apparently cannot tolerate. 2. Sour grapes. Could be. All of us here are on some path for personal development, which at some point contained the word "enlightenment". So if it isn't happening for some, perhaps they find it much more preferable if it is not discussed at all. (hint: wrong forum ). 3. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment. Possibly. Not a lot of control to exert when you learn that enlightenment is a self identified condition, with no outside agency needed for confirmation. Kind of mind blowing to some. No control to exert. Perhaps this is why some people's need to shut down others talking about being enlightened is increasing on FFL. It is the only control they have left: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened - LOL. 4. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment, part 2. "I meditated too much once and was in Cosmic Consciousness for like two weeks. So what?". That's like saying backing out of the driveway is the same as driving cross-country. 5. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment, part 3. "I think enlightenment is possible, just not by you. I don't judge you enlightened enough by my standards as I see them to allow you to be enlightened in my eyes, according to me". Speaks for itself. 6. Doesn't give a shit about enlightenment. Nah, that's for the people who don't ever talk about it. `Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened' screams interest in enlightenment, doesn't it? Enlightenment is for the masses. Get used to it. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
Puleeez. There are no fairies flitting around here to describe hell or heaven. How would they know anyway? And who else would have told me about the blessed rain except Himself ... the dark angel, the lord of wrath, the secret lover of god? .. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > How do you know what you're saying is true? It sounds like you're telling us fairy tales bent to your own satisfation. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote: > > > > > > Your views of Heaven and Hell are much too truncated. Don't you > > realize that neither Heaven nor Hell is a simple projection of human > > desires and fears? > > > > Heaven is whatever good you can imagine. Hell, though, is not that place > > of torment you might visualize from past artwork or cinema. > > > > For instance, it actually rains in Hell. Bet they didn't tell you > > that in church or on long rounding! > > > > Christian types I've discussed this with insist that this > > "rain" is the tears of the Saints weeping at the many sins of > > Hell's denizens. Of course, I dismiss such platitudes, coated as > > they are with sentimental piety. I point out that this "falling > > rain" which cools everyone is actually the effluence from the Saints > > in Heaven as they spit at the sinners in Hell. The good and holy Saints > > hate our sins so much they show their distaste this way. However, > > because they are so holy with God's grace, this spittle down-flow is > > experienced as moments of sweetness. > > > > Now isn't that wonderful? > > > > Of course, it doesn't last long because soon come whole armies of > > avenging angels, hacking and eviscerating all those Hell beings to > > demonstrate God's righteous wrath. > > > > Then, glory of glories, all the Hell beings are reborn in the same place > > to do it again. > > > > The only escape? Join the opponents of God to oppose Him and His will. > > After all, the chief opponent of God is still the greatest angel and > > still his greatest lover. How else to get the beloved's attention > > better than being opposed to Him? > > > > Yep, you don't learn this in Sunday school. > > .. > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were born > > > through your mother who conceived you with your father? As such, you as > > > a physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would agree > > > with the first premise.> > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > Curtis, > > Please, explain why you think the first premise is incorrect. Or, why my > example is incorrect. Hey John, Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly discussion with you having been challenged! I was pointing out that you were going from a single instance to support the assertion of a universal and that this is a fallacious form of reasoning. Just because we have a biological cause we can't automatically infer that a principle of universal causation exists. In the case of existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a cause. But I'll hang with the point if you are interested. Have I missed something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > > > that the universe was never created, that it > > > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > > > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > > > > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > > > > lack of understanding of their own birth and > > > > death, project a similar birth and death onto > > > > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't > > > > make it so. > > > > > > > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF > > > > the universe is eternal, and was never "created," > > > > then this whole argument is hooey. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological > > > > > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > > > > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > > > > > > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > > > > > > and never-created? > > > > > > > > > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > > > > > > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > > > > > > > > > > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > > > > > > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > > > > > > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > > > > > > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > Uh, guys, you're *assuming* he's going to reason this > way. No I was observing how he already reasoned when he went from one instance and tried to connect it to a universal principle that would apply in a completely different instance. It was a simple induction, but that unfortunately is a fallacious form or reasoning. You protect that assumption from challenge if you > stop paying attention now. I predict he has a few more > things up his sleeve that you wouldn't be able to > dismiss quite so arrogantly when he gets to the second > premise. There was nothing arrogant in noticing inductive reasoning. I was stating a fact with no commentary. > > I don't think either of you has the guts to stick with > it and find out. Unnecessarily pugnacious interjection. I don't know what "guts" it takes to follow an online discussion but I have a pretty good track record with following them here. > > That's 50 for me this week, but I'll enjoy seeing how > this one plays out when I come back Friday or Saturdy. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree > > > > that you were born through your mother who conceived you > > > > with your father? As such, you as a physical being had > > > > a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would agree with > > > > the first premise.> > > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > Exactly. "Because humans come into existence because > > someone fucked someone else, the universe must have > > also come into existence the same way." That is > > *exactly* the projection-reasoning I described. > > Uh, guys, you're *assuming* he's going to reason this > way. You protect that assumption from challenge if you > stop paying attention now. I predict he has a few more > things up his sleeve that you wouldn't be able to > dismiss quite so arrogantly when he gets to the second > premise. > > I don't think either of you has the guts to stick with > it and find out. > > That's 50 for me this week, but I'll enjoy seeing how > this one plays out when I come back Friday or Saturdy. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > Brian, this is far, far from a group of true believers! > > --- On Wed, 5/4/11, brianbmurr wrote: > > > From: brianbmurr > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 2:23 PM > > I am very sorry for my second post to > > this forum and want to thank those that overlooked my post > > and responded with info about spirituality in Fairfield. > > > > The only excuse I can provide is that I had wrongly pegged > > this forum as a group of true believers. I guess I was just > > looking for an excuse to flame out on the TB crowd. > > > > Many of your informative posts made it evident that I was > > wrong and you correctly labeled me an asshole. I wrongly > > judged you and you returned the favor by labeling me. > > > > Thanks very much for the info. > > > > I think the TMO is at a crossroads. One of 2 things will > > happen: > > > > 1. They will collapse under their own weight of lies, > > deceit, false research, and extravagant claims (I was at MIU > > when the first "study" came out showing increased longevity. > > MIU made posters and started a whole new slogan of > > immortality.a bit of a stretch imo:) > > > > If/when they collapse, I was feeling out what other > > spiritual endeavors are supported by the FF community. Buck, > > thanks for that link. > > > > 2. They will be forced to evolve and start doing honest > > research and open it up to legitimate scientific > > collaboration on consciousness research, which is becoming > > really hot right now. Sadly, they could have been at the > > forefront of a huge thrust of current research if they did > > not have such a closed ideology from the start. Yes, this is sad and a missed huge opportunity. Instead, other types of meditation and paths are the subjects for the real research being done. MMY was ahead of his time in so many ways, but the sleazy aspects of the TMO undermined the good stuff. That is why > > Larry Domash left. That is why Marvin Minsky from MIT ripped > > them a new a-hole in an on campus interview that I was at. > > That tape will never see the light of day. > > > > Again, sorry for misjudging this group!!! Forgiven. > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses
But it is a group of assholes. :) On May 4, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Peter wrote: Brian, this is far, far from a group of true believers! --- On Wed, 5/4/11, brianbmurr wrote: > From: brianbmurr > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 2:23 PM > I am very sorry for my second post to > this forum and want to thank those that overlooked my post > and responded with info about spirituality in Fairfield. > > The only excuse I can provide is that I had wrongly pegged > this forum as a group of true believers. I guess I was just > looking for an excuse to flame out on the TB crowd. > > Many of your informative posts made it evident that I was > wrong and you correctly labeled me an asshole. I wrongly > judged you and you returned the favor by labeling me. > > Thanks very much for the info. > > I think the TMO is at a crossroads. One of 2 things will > happen: > > 1. They will collapse under their own weight of lies, > deceit, false research, and extravagant claims (I was at MIU > when the first "study" came out showing increased longevity. > MIU made posters and started a whole new slogan of > immortality.a bit of a stretch imo:) > > If/when they collapse, I was feeling out what other > spiritual endeavors are supported by the FF community. Buck, > thanks for that link. > > 2. They will be forced to evolve and start doing honest > research and open it up to legitimate scientific > collaboration on consciousness research, which is becoming > really hot right now. Sadly, they could have been at the > forefront of a huge thrust of current research if they did > not have such a closed ideology from the start. That is why > Larry Domash left. That is why Marvin Minsky from MIT ripped > them a new a-hole in an on campus interview that I was at. > That tape will never see the light of day. > > Again, sorry for misjudging this group!!! > > Brian > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree > > > that you were born through your mother who conceived you > > > with your father? As such, you as a physical being had > > > a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would agree with > > > the first premise.> > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > Exactly. "Because humans come into existence because > someone fucked someone else, the universe must have > also come into existence the same way." That is > *exactly* the projection-reasoning I described. > > John simply cannot *conceive* of a universe that > didn't have a beginning. So he's unable to address > the fact that his point #2 is an *assumption*, and > quite possibly an invalid one. If it *is* an invalid > assumption, then the whole line of reasoning falls > apart. > > On one level he's trying to suggest "As below, so > above." That is, "Because humans born and die, the > universe has to as well." > > My bet is that he will be completely unable to say > that an eternal, never-created universe is even a > *possibility*. And why? Because Bronze-age teachers > he considers infallible made up a bunch of creation > myths and he believes they're not only true, but > Truth. > > Me, I prefer to think for myself. > Barry, Don't give us the run-around. Please, answer the question that I posed? Were you born to a human mother or not? If yes, then you had a beginning and a cause. Isn't that so? > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > > > that the universe was never created, that it > > > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > > > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > > > > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > > > > lack of understanding of their own birth and > > > > death, project a similar birth and death onto > > > > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't > > > > make it so. > > > > > > > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF > > > > the universe is eternal, and was never "created," > > > > then this whole argument is hooey. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological > > > > > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > > > > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > > > > > > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > > > > > > and never-created? > > > > > > > > > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > > > > > > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > > > > > > > > > > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > > > > > > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > > > > > > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > > > > > > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were born > > through your mother who conceived you with your father? As such, you as a > > physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would agree with > > the first premise.> > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > Curtis, Please, explain why you think the first premise is incorrect. Or, why my example is incorrect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > > that the universe was never created, that it > > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > > > lack of understanding of their own birth and > > > death, project a similar birth and death onto > > > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't > > > make it so. > > > > > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF > > > the universe is eternal, and was never "created," > > > then this whole argument is hooey. > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological > > > > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > > > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > > > > > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > > > > > and never-created? > > > > > > > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > > > > > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > > > > > > > > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > > > > > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > > > > > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > > > > > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses
Brian, this is far, far from a group of true believers! --- On Wed, 5/4/11, brianbmurr wrote: > From: brianbmurr > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 2:23 PM > I am very sorry for my second post to > this forum and want to thank those that overlooked my post > and responded with info about spirituality in Fairfield. > > The only excuse I can provide is that I had wrongly pegged > this forum as a group of true believers. I guess I was just > looking for an excuse to flame out on the TB crowd. > > Many of your informative posts made it evident that I was > wrong and you correctly labeled me an asshole. I wrongly > judged you and you returned the favor by labeling me. > > Thanks very much for the info. > > I think the TMO is at a crossroads. One of 2 things will > happen: > > 1. They will collapse under their own weight of lies, > deceit, false research, and extravagant claims (I was at MIU > when the first "study" came out showing increased longevity. > MIU made posters and started a whole new slogan of > immortality.a bit of a stretch imo:) > > If/when they collapse, I was feeling out what other > spiritual endeavors are supported by the FF community. Buck, > thanks for that link. > > 2. They will be forced to evolve and start doing honest > research and open it up to legitimate scientific > collaboration on consciousness research, which is becoming > really hot right now. Sadly, they could have been at the > forefront of a huge thrust of current research if they did > not have such a closed ideology from the start. That is why > Larry Domash left. That is why Marvin Minsky from MIT ripped > them a new a-hole in an on campus interview that I was at. > That tape will never see the light of day. > > Again, sorry for misjudging this group!!! > > Brian > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
> > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you > > agree that you were born through your mother who > > conceived you with your father? As such, you as > > a physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, > > then you would agree with the first premise. > curtisdeltablues: > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > Logicians posit an 'uncaused cause' in order to avoid regress ad infinitum. You cannot move back in an explanation of a phenomenon or concept without end without employing circular logic. "Anomalous monism is a philosophical thesis about the mind-body relationship. It was first proposed by Donald Davidson in his 1970 paper Mental events. The theory is twofold and states that mental events are identical with physical events, and that the mental is anomalous, i.e. under their mental descriptions these mental events are not regulated by strict physical laws..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_monism
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
PS Barry I also meant to congratulate you on changing Brian's mind about you with this post. I am sure he really likes you now. You guys are practically BFFs. Classy job as always! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > Barry, you are the asshole here. Please don't speak for the > > rest of us. Remember the bumper sticker as it applies to you: > > MEAN PEOPLE SUCK. > > Brian, because you probably don't know, Jim (whynotnow) > is one of the self-proclaimed ENLIGHTENED on this > forum. Why just a day or so ago he said the following > about how the enlightened (like him) were able to "meet > each moment with freshness, innocence, and clarity." > He has "more attention" to bring to anything he does, > "including interacting with others." He has a "softer, > yet more effective demeanor" than the rest of us non- > enlightened peons, doncha know. :-) > > Wait'll you see how Mr. I-Can-Carry-On-A-Vendetta- > Against-The-Guy-Who-Doesn't-Think-I'm-Worth-Pissing- > On-Much-Less-Conversing-With-For-Years reacts to *this*. > THAT is the TM version of "enlightenment." > > By all means, move to Fairfield if that's how you want > to turn out. :-) > > On the other hand, given the way you flew off the handle > and threw a tantrum just because people didn't rush to > embrace you the way you expected them to, maybe you're > already TM-enlightened. :-) > > > On Tuesday Jimbo posted: > > > > Relative to being selfless, what I have heard from many of > > those who are realized is about the huge reduction of thoughts > > in the mind during daily life, post-awakening. > > > > The mind is not stuck in "drive" any longer, relentlessly > > shoving forward the concept of a self. This simple change > > allows someone realized to meet each moment with more > > freshness, innocence and clarity. The term "restful alertness" > > comes out of the closet. More attention is available to devote > > to anything we want to do, including interacting with others. > > > > I agree with the mystery poster too that personality remains > > pretty much the same, pre- and post-awakening, with a softer > > yet more effective demeanor over time. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree > > > that you were born through your mother who conceived you > > > with your father? As such, you as a physical being had > > > a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would agree with > > > the first premise.> > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > Exactly. "Because humans come into existence because > someone fucked someone else, the universe must have > also come into existence the same way." That is > *exactly* the projection-reasoning I described. Uh, guys, you're *assuming* he's going to reason this way. You protect that assumption from challenge if you stop paying attention now. I predict he has a few more things up his sleeve that you wouldn't be able to dismiss quite so arrogantly when he gets to the second premise. I don't think either of you has the guts to stick with it and find out. That's 50 for me this week, but I'll enjoy seeing how this one plays out when I come back Friday or Saturdy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
"Cultish Wolf now in Skeptic Sheep's garb." Exactly. The guy has spent decades beholden to gurus and now, suddenly, he is the lone voice of reason pointing out to the rest of us our mistakes on the path...lol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" wrote: > > > Yeah it's nothing new, Barry feels like FFL is his personal fiefdom :-) and > he feels he is losing control now :-). I remember the welcome I got and boy > Barry will never forget the response he got from me, he got a mighty ass > whipping. > > But it's the same old shit with him - "we are watching you", "You can't fool > us", he just can't let go of his cult mob mindset. Once a cultist always a > cultist. Cultish Wolf now in Skeptic Sheep's garb. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > Barry: Own your own stuff and I won't gently toss it back in your lap. You > > reacted to this fellow on everyone's behalf here, by calling him an > > "asshole". That is inappropriate, imo. If you want to be a jerk, be a jerk > > on your own, but stop implying any of us think similarly. Thanks in > > advance. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > > > > > Barry, you are the asshole here. Please don't speak for the > > > > rest of us. Remember the bumper sticker as it applies to you: > > > > MEAN PEOPLE SUCK. > > > > > > Brian, because you probably don't know, Jim (whynotnow) > > > is one of the self-proclaimed ENLIGHTENED on this > > > forum. Why just a day or so ago he said the following > > > about how the enlightened (like him) were able to "meet > > > each moment with freshness, innocence, and clarity." > > > He has "more attention" to bring to anything he does, > > > "including interacting with others." He has a "softer, > > > yet more effective demeanor" than the rest of us non- > > > enlightened peons, doncha know. :-) > > > > > > Wait'll you see how Mr. I-Can-Carry-On-A-Vendetta- > > > Against-The-Guy-Who-Doesn't-Think-I'm-Worth-Pissing- > > > On-Much-Less-Conversing-With-For-Years reacts to *this*. > > > THAT is the TM version of "enlightenment." > > > > > > By all means, move to Fairfield if that's how you want > > > to turn out. :-) > > > > > > On the other hand, given the way you flew off the handle > > > and threw a tantrum just because people didn't rush to > > > embrace you the way you expected them to, maybe you're > > > already TM-enlightened. :-) > > > > > > > On Tuesday Jimbo posted: > > > > > > > > Relative to being selfless, what I have heard from many of > > > > those who are realized is about the huge reduction of thoughts > > > > in the mind during daily life, post-awakening. > > > > > > > > The mind is not stuck in "drive" any longer, relentlessly > > > > shoving forward the concept of a self. This simple change > > > > allows someone realized to meet each moment with more > > > > freshness, innocence and clarity. The term "restful alertness" > > > > comes out of the closet. More attention is available to devote > > > > to anything we want to do, including interacting with others. > > > > > > > > I agree with the mystery poster too that personality remains > > > > pretty much the same, pre- and post-awakening, with a softer > > > > yet more effective demeanor over time. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree > > that you were born through your mother who conceived you > > with your father? As such, you as a physical being had > > a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would agree with > > the first premise.> > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. Exactly. "Because humans come into existence because someone fucked someone else, the universe must have also come into existence the same way." That is *exactly* the projection-reasoning I described. John simply cannot *conceive* of a universe that didn't have a beginning. So he's unable to address the fact that his point #2 is an *assumption*, and quite possibly an invalid one. If it *is* an invalid assumption, then the whole line of reasoning falls apart. On one level he's trying to suggest "As below, so above." That is, "Because humans born and die, the universe has to as well." My bet is that he will be completely unable to say that an eternal, never-created universe is even a *possibility*. And why? Because Bronze-age teachers he considers infallible made up a bunch of creation myths and he believes they're not only true, but Truth. Me, I prefer to think for myself. > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > > that the universe was never created, that it > > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > > > lack of understanding of their own birth and > > > death, project a similar birth and death onto > > > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't > > > make it so. > > > > > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF > > > the universe is eternal, and was never "created," > > > then this whole argument is hooey. > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological > > > > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > > > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > > > > > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > > > > > and never-created? > > > > > > > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > > > > > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > > > > > > > > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > > > > > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > > > > > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > > > > > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] WELCOME at the Brahmasthan of India
http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/2011_04/2011_04_20_Raja_Harris.html J A I G U R U D E V
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Changing the Osama Narrative
On 05/04/2011 12:18 PM, WillyTex wrote: > >>> Deathers aren't the only ones who want to see >>> Osama's photos and you're right there's no >>> convincing them no matter what... > Bhairitu: >> Sometimes they are things you can't even talk >> about in fear... >> > You sound really scared. How low of you to NOT post the rest of that sentence. Here's the WHOLE sentence again: "Sometimes they are things you can't even talk about in fear that the gov will figure out who leaked." Did I say at all that I was scared? No, I expressed "concern" about getting someone in trouble because they told me or you something. > "There are known knowns; there are things we know we > know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is > to say we know there are some things we do not know. > > But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we > don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld Didn't Obama promise us transparency in government? Where is it? So you are now an Obama fan? Go figure. These are just opinions but for some reason "opinions" really rattle some people. Must be the transits. :-D To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > Barry, you are the asshole here. Please don't speak for the > > rest of us. Remember the bumper sticker as it applies to you: > > MEAN PEOPLE SUCK. > > Brian, because you probably don't know, Jim (whynotnow) > is one of the self-proclaimed ENLIGHTENED on this > forum. Yo Barry, enlightenment is always a self proclamation, if may be acknowledged by others but can never be proclaimed by others because the outer is so deceptive. Its the ego that always needs constant acknowledgement and approval. > Why just a day or so ago he said the following > about how the enlightened (like him) were able to "meet > each moment with freshness, innocence, and clarity." > He has "more attention" to bring to anything he does, > "including interacting with others." He has a "softer, > yet more effective demeanor" than the rest of us non- > enlightened peons, doncha know. :-) > > Wait'll you see how Mr. I-Can-Carry-On-A-Vendetta- > Against-The-Guy-Who-Doesn't-Think-I'm-Worth-Pissing- > On-Much-Less-Conversing-With-For-Years reacts to *this*. > THAT is the TM version of "enlightenment." > > By all means, move to Fairfield if that's how you want > to turn out. :-) > > On the other hand, given the way you flew off the handle > and threw a tantrum just because people didn't rush to > embrace you the way you expected them to, maybe you're > already TM-enlightened. :-) > > > On Tuesday Jimbo posted: > > > > Relative to being selfless, what I have heard from many of > > those who are realized is about the huge reduction of thoughts > > in the mind during daily life, post-awakening. > > > > The mind is not stuck in "drive" any longer, relentlessly > > shoving forward the concept of a self. This simple change > > allows someone realized to meet each moment with more > > freshness, innocence and clarity. The term "restful alertness" > > comes out of the closet. More attention is available to devote > > to anything we want to do, including interacting with others. > > > > I agree with the mystery poster too that personality remains > > pretty much the same, pre- and post-awakening, with a softer > > yet more effective demeanor over time. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > Curtis, Another nice piece. Your talent is wasted here. When ya gunna blog? > > Edg As always you are too kind Edg, thanks. I am lucky anyone is reading my stuff here! > > wrote: > > Actually he died a martyr and would be rewarded if his imaginary afterlife > > was any more real than the other ones. Far from having a melancholy day, > > he was all Godded up and probably as idiotically sure of his future as > > David Koresh. > > > > The fantasy that nonbelievers are somehow punished for not buying in to one > > of the many god beliefs is one of the tells of the true compassionate > > status of believers. It isn't good enough for them to enjoy eternity in > > Club Dead with all the perks of VIP membership, they also revel in the idea > > that people who did not think as they did will suffer eternally. > > Eternally. Here is how long that is. You are standing in a check-out line > > with 10 people in front of you who all want to use coupons AND pay by > > check. The shopping cart in front of you has a kid in the seat facing you > > with a loose cough. And all the National Enquirer stories that you are > > reading in line to kill time are about the royal wedding. That is how long > > eternity is. > > > > Read about Pat Tillmen if you want to understand how a non believer faces > > death. Well at least a heroic one. Christopher Hitchens is also doing a > > good job dispelling the myth that you need the promise of a lollipop if you > > are a good boy to face mortality. > > > > Atheists have no "I told you so" fantasies. There will be no "in your face > > believers" for us. There will just be the same non existence that existed > > for us before our birth about which Mark Twain wryly wrote that he didn't > > exist for millions of years before his birth and it didn't bother him at > > all! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were born > through your mother who conceived you with your father? As such, you as a > physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would agree with the > first premise.> Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > that the universe was never created, that it > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > > lack of understanding of their own birth and > > death, project a similar birth and death onto > > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't > > make it so. > > > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF > > the universe is eternal, and was never "created," > > then this whole argument is hooey. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological > > > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > > > > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > > > > and never-created? > > > > > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > > > > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > > > > > > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > > > > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > > > > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > > > > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
Yeah it's nothing new, Barry feels like FFL is his personal fiefdom :-) and he feels he is losing control now :-). I remember the welcome I got and boy Barry will never forget the response he got from me, he got a mighty ass whipping. But it's the same old shit with him - "we are watching you", "You can't fool us", he just can't let go of his cult mob mindset. Once a cultist always a cultist. Cultish Wolf now in Skeptic Sheep's garb. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > Barry: Own your own stuff and I won't gently toss it back in your lap. You > reacted to this fellow on everyone's behalf here, by calling him an > "asshole". That is inappropriate, imo. If you want to be a jerk, be a jerk on > your own, but stop implying any of us think similarly. Thanks in advance. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > > > Barry, you are the asshole here. Please don't speak for the > > > rest of us. Remember the bumper sticker as it applies to you: > > > MEAN PEOPLE SUCK. > > > > Brian, because you probably don't know, Jim (whynotnow) > > is one of the self-proclaimed ENLIGHTENED on this > > forum. Why just a day or so ago he said the following > > about how the enlightened (like him) were able to "meet > > each moment with freshness, innocence, and clarity." > > He has "more attention" to bring to anything he does, > > "including interacting with others." He has a "softer, > > yet more effective demeanor" than the rest of us non- > > enlightened peons, doncha know. :-) > > > > Wait'll you see how Mr. I-Can-Carry-On-A-Vendetta- > > Against-The-Guy-Who-Doesn't-Think-I'm-Worth-Pissing- > > On-Much-Less-Conversing-With-For-Years reacts to *this*. > > THAT is the TM version of "enlightenment." > > > > By all means, move to Fairfield if that's how you want > > to turn out. :-) > > > > On the other hand, given the way you flew off the handle > > and threw a tantrum just because people didn't rush to > > embrace you the way you expected them to, maybe you're > > already TM-enlightened. :-) > > > > > On Tuesday Jimbo posted: > > > > > > Relative to being selfless, what I have heard from many of > > > those who are realized is about the huge reduction of thoughts > > > in the mind during daily life, post-awakening. > > > > > > The mind is not stuck in "drive" any longer, relentlessly > > > shoving forward the concept of a self. This simple change > > > allows someone realized to meet each moment with more > > > freshness, innocence and clarity. The term "restful alertness" > > > comes out of the closet. More attention is available to devote > > > to anything we want to do, including interacting with others. > > > > > > I agree with the mystery poster too that personality remains > > > pretty much the same, pre- and post-awakening, with a softer > > > yet more effective demeanor over time. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
whynotnow7: > Barry: Own your own stuff and I won't gently toss > it back in your lap. You reacted to this fellow on > everyone's behalf here, by calling him an "asshole". > That is inappropriate, imo. If you want to be a > jerk, be a jerk on your own, but stop implying any > of us think similarly. Thanks in advance. > According to Uncle Barry: "The discussions have to be based on the assumption that we are discussing matters of *opinion*. No one is "right," no one is "wrong." References to past statements by either poster are limited to the current thread. Ad hominens and insults are similarly verboten. Many of the "rules" above are in place and work well on other spiritual forums that I participate in, and seem to accomplish the seemingly impossible -- creating a high-vibe environment in which to discuss spiritual topics without flaming." From: Uncle Tantra Subject: Re: An Orwellian redefinition of "leaving" Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2003-11-22 02:53:19 PST
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
> > > I agree with the mystery poster too that personality remains > > > pretty much the same, pre- and post-awakening, with a softer > > > yet more effective demeanor over time. Who is this "mystery poster" anyway ? You seem somewhat bitter and aggressive. I suppose that means you are a "Buddhist", no ?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
OMG! That was the first thought I remember having, moving down the birth canal!
Uh-oh, here we go again!
From: PaliGap
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 4, 2011 8:46:16 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
>..Atheists have no "I told you so" fantasies. There will be no "in your face
>believers" for us. There will just be the same non existence that existed for
>us
>before our birth about which Mark Twain wryly wrote that he didn't exist for
>millions of years before his birth and it didn't bother him at all!
Though it must have been the mother of all surprises when
he found himself "waking up".
("Uh oh, here we go again"?)
[FairfieldLife] Study: Paul Krugman Is America's Most Correct Columnist
"Even when the students eliminated
political predictions and looked
only at predictions for the economy
and social issues, they found
that liberals still do better
than conservatives at prediction."
Krugman tops, Cal Thomas bottom of accurate predictors, according to study at
Hamilton College
CLINTON, N.Y. Op-ed columnists and TV's talking heads
build followings by making bold, confident predictions about
politics and the economy. But rarely are their predictions analyzed
for accuracy.
Now, a class at Hamilton College led by public policy professor
P. Gary Wyckoff has analyzed the predictions of 26
prognosticators between September 2007 and December 2008.
Their findings? Anyone can make as accurate a prediction as most
of them if just by flipping a coin.
The Hamilton students sampled the predictions of 26 individuals
who wrote columns in major print media and who appeared on the
three major Sunday news shows Face the Nation, Meet the Press,
and This Week and evaluated the accuracy of 472 predictions
made during the 16-month period.
They used a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being "will not happen, 5 being
"will absolutely happen") to rate the accuracy of each, and
then divided them into three categories: The Good, The Bad, and
The Ugly.
The students found that only nine of the prognosticators they
studied could predict more accurately than a coin flip. Two
were significantly less accurate, and the remaining 14 were
not statistically any better or worse than a coin flip.
The top prognosticators led by New York Times columnist
Paul Krugman scored above five points and were labeled "Good,"
while those scoring between zero and five were "Bad."
Anyone scoring less than zero (which was possible
because prognosticators lost points for inaccurate predictions)
were put into "The Ugly" category. Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas
came up short and scored the lowest of the 26.
Even when the students eliminated political predictions and looked
only at predictions for the economy and social issues, they found
that liberals still do better than conservatives at prediction.
After Krugman, the most accurate pundits were Maureen Dowd of The
New York Times, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and former House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi all Democrats and/or liberals.
Also landing in the "Good" category, however, were
conservative columnists Kathleen Parker and David Brooks, along
with Bush Administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.
Left-leaning columnist Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post
rounded out the "good" list.
Those scoring lowest "The Ugly" with negative tallies
were conservative columnist Cal Thomas; U.S. Senator Lindsey
Graham (R-SC); U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI); U.S. Senator
Joe Lieberman, a McCain supporter and Democrat-turned-Independent
from Connecticut; Sam Donaldson of ABC; and conservative
columnist George Will.
Landing between the two extremes "The Bad" were Howard
Wolfson, communications director for Hillary Clinton's 2008
campaign; former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a hopeful in the
2008 Republican primary; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich,
a Republican; Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic
nominee for president in 2004; liberal columnist Bob Herbert of The
New York Times; Andrea Mitchell of NBC; New York Times columnist
Tom Friedman; the late David Broder, former columnist for
The Washington Post; Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page;
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof; and Hillary Clinton.
The group also found a link between conditional predictions
and accuracy, that is, a prediction that was conditional ("If A,
then B") was less likely to be accurate. Finally, those
prognosticators with a law degree were more likely to be wrong.
== Their research paper, "Are Talking Heads Blowing Hot Air? An
Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media" will
be presented via webcast on Monday, May 2, at 4:15 p.m.,
at www.hamilton.edu/pundit. The paper will also be available at
that address at that time. Questions during the presentation can
be posed via Twitter using #hcpundit.==
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/130485/claim-krugman-is-top-prognosticator-cal-thomas-is-the-worst/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Treasure Trove
Mike Dixon: > Bin Laden wasn't killed, but captured and is now being > *interrogated* by Pakistan and CIA, to be killed at a > later date... > If Osama bin Laden is alive he is being interrogated using 'enhanced techniques' at a secret location in Afghanistan's Tora Bora region. bin Laden is spilling the beans on all the Pakistani government, military, and security. When Osama gets the 'water-boarding', he will probably squeal like a baby and rat on everyone who helped him hide for nine years! This was apparently ordered by President Obama, but the Navy Seals had to kill bin Laden, so that bin Laden would not give out information about where Barack Obama was really born.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fake photo of Osama's death
Why do you think he's dead? Raunchy could be right. He may have been captured alive and being water boarded as we speak while everyone believes he's dead and buried. From: Tom Pall To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, May 3, 2011 4:04:10 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fake photo of Osama's death On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM, authfriend wrote: >At least he'll be an *organic* bit of garbage, nontoxic >pollution-wise, unlike most of what we toss in the ocean. >His remains won't hurt the fish and other denizens of the >sea that will consume them. > > Black hair dye probably isn't very organic. Except it most probably contains carbon and double bonds, which technically makes it organic, as in Organic Chemistry 101 As to proof that he's dead, I would imagine they made sure >they had plenty of it before they threw him overboard. I'd >guess they may have kept a few pieces of him for that very >purpose. > > > > Yeah. DNA from his family. And a picture that looks as much like him as Obama's "birth certificate" looks real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
Barry: Own your own stuff and I won't gently toss it back in your lap. You reacted to this fellow on everyone's behalf here, by calling him an "asshole". That is inappropriate, imo. If you want to be a jerk, be a jerk on your own, but stop implying any of us think similarly. Thanks in advance. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > Barry, you are the asshole here. Please don't speak for the > > rest of us. Remember the bumper sticker as it applies to you: > > MEAN PEOPLE SUCK. > > Brian, because you probably don't know, Jim (whynotnow) > is one of the self-proclaimed ENLIGHTENED on this > forum. Why just a day or so ago he said the following > about how the enlightened (like him) were able to "meet > each moment with freshness, innocence, and clarity." > He has "more attention" to bring to anything he does, > "including interacting with others." He has a "softer, > yet more effective demeanor" than the rest of us non- > enlightened peons, doncha know. :-) > > Wait'll you see how Mr. I-Can-Carry-On-A-Vendetta- > Against-The-Guy-Who-Doesn't-Think-I'm-Worth-Pissing- > On-Much-Less-Conversing-With-For-Years reacts to *this*. > THAT is the TM version of "enlightenment." > > By all means, move to Fairfield if that's how you want > to turn out. :-) > > On the other hand, given the way you flew off the handle > and threw a tantrum just because people didn't rush to > embrace you the way you expected them to, maybe you're > already TM-enlightened. :-) > > > On Tuesday Jimbo posted: > > > > Relative to being selfless, what I have heard from many of > > those who are realized is about the huge reduction of thoughts > > in the mind during daily life, post-awakening. > > > > The mind is not stuck in "drive" any longer, relentlessly > > shoving forward the concept of a self. This simple change > > allows someone realized to meet each moment with more > > freshness, innocence and clarity. The term "restful alertness" > > comes out of the closet. More attention is available to devote > > to anything we want to do, including interacting with others. > > > > I agree with the mystery poster too that personality remains > > pretty much the same, pre- and post-awakening, with a softer > > yet more effective demeanor over time. >
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WillyTex Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:05 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield Barry Wright sucks big time!!! He probably has never even visited Fairfield or been inside a Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge in his hole life. Barry Wright is an impostor. You mean his pie hole life?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Changing the Osama Narrative
> > Deathers aren't the only ones who want to see > > Osama's photos and you're right there's no > > convincing them no matter what... > Bhairitu: > Sometimes they are things you can't even talk > about in fear... > You sound really scared. "There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns the ones we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Treasure Trove
Or got the *f* out of Dodge! With the *treasure trove* they claim they have now, if I had anything to do with Al Qaeda, cell, financier, runner, etc., I'd be sweating bullets and on the move. PS New conspiracy theory, Bin Laden wasn't killed, but captured and is now being *interrogated* by Pakistan and CIA, to be killed at a later date. From: Robert To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, May 3, 2011 1:34:19 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Treasure Trove --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > Those Pakistani boys down at the 7-11 ain't shown up for work in two days > now, > wonder what's up. > They're laying low?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > Barry, > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > determinist might think up. I have no idea > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were born through your mother who conceived you with your father? As such, you as a physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would agree with the first premise. > > MY point was about your second premise. You > have no way of knowing whether the universe > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > exist one moment and then existed the next. > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > that the universe was never created, that it > has always been, is now, and always will be. > There has never been a time when it was not. > There will never be a time when it is not. > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > lack of understanding of their own birth and > death, project a similar birth and death onto > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't > make it so. > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF > the universe is eternal, and was never "created," > then this whole argument is hooey. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological > > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > > > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > > > and never-created? > > > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > > > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > > > > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > > > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > > > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > > > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > and never-created? Bbbbut... If the universe is eternal and never-created, it's existence extends back in time to infinity. But as, by definition, an infinite series can never be traversed, how could we be here 'now'?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
> > > Barry, you are the asshole here. Please don't speak > > > for the rest of us. Remember the bumper sticker as > > > it applies to you: MEAN PEOPLE SUCK. > > > turquoiseb: > > By all means, move to Fairfield if that's how you want > > to turn out... > > nablusoss1008: > Hehe ;-) > Barry Wright sucks big time!!! He probably has never even visited Fairfield or been inside a Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge in his hole life. Barry Wright is an impostor.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
> > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > turquoiseb: > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > that the universe was never created, that it > has always been, is now, and always will be. > There has never been a time when it was not. > There will never be a time when it is not... > Most Buddhist do not ascribe to this theory. In Buddhism, there is no static entity; everything is always changing due to Causation - the law of cause and effect. Everything has a cause; there is nothing that is not caused by something else, enumerated by the historical Buddha and supported by all Buddhists. "...phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect. It is variously rendered into English as "dependent origination", "conditioned genesis", "dependent co-arising", "interdependent arising", or "contingency"." Buddhism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
> > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > turquoiseb: > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > and never-created? > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > and thus point #3 is invalid. > Ahem. Your teacher, the Buddha, did not ascribe to the eternalist theory. If there was an eternal substance, it would be an absolute, which would be counter to Buddhist teachings. In fact, Buddha taught that everything has a cause, based on the simple observation that when an object is put into motion it will continue in motion until that object meets resistance from another object. > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > You are probably thinking of Hindu teachings which posit an eternal cycle of creation and destruction, as in reincarnation of the soul-monad. But, Buddha taught Causation, not an eternal soul theory.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > Barry, you are the asshole here. Please don't speak for the > > rest of us. Remember the bumper sticker as it applies to you: > > MEAN PEOPLE SUCK. Hehe ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > Barry, > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > Let us know if you agree with this. It sounds to me as if it's something that a determinist might think up. I have no idea whether it's true or not, and neither do you. MY point was about your second premise. You have no way of knowing whether the universe was "created," in the sense that it didn't exist one moment and then existed the next. Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe that the universe was never created, that it has always been, is now, and always will be. There has never been a time when it was not. There will never be a time when it is not. Therefore the whole issue of "What was around before the First Creation that enabled Creation to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. My point is that humans, out of their fear and lack of understanding of their own birth and death, project a similar birth and death onto the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't make it so. C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF the universe is eternal, and was never "created," then this whole argument is hooey. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > > and never-created? > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses
I am very sorry for my second post to this forum and want to thank those that overlooked my post and responded with info about spirituality in Fairfield. The only excuse I can provide is that I had wrongly pegged this forum as a group of true believers. I guess I was just looking for an excuse to flame out on the TB crowd. Many of your informative posts made it evident that I was wrong and you correctly labeled me an asshole. I wrongly judged you and you returned the favor by labeling me. Thanks very much for the info. I think the TMO is at a crossroads. One of 2 things will happen: 1. They will collapse under their own weight of lies, deceit, false research, and extravagant claims (I was at MIU when the first "study" came out showing increased longevity. MIU made posters and started a whole new slogan of immortality.a bit of a stretch imo:) If/when they collapse, I was feeling out what other spiritual endeavors are supported by the FF community. Buck, thanks for that link. 2. They will be forced to evolve and start doing honest research and open it up to legitimate scientific collaboration on consciousness research, which is becoming really hot right now. Sadly, they could have been at the forefront of a huge thrust of current research if they did not have such a closed ideology from the start. That is why Larry Domash left. That is why Marvin Minsky from MIT ripped them a new a-hole in an on campus interview that I was at. That tape will never see the light of day. Again, sorry for misjudging this group!!! Brian
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
Barry, The first premise should be read as follows: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. Let us know if you agree with this. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > and never-created? > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >..Atheists have no "I told you so" fantasies. There will be no "in your
> > > >face believers" for us. There will just be the same non existence that
> > > >existed for us before our birth about which Mark Twain wryly wrote that
> > > >he didn't exist for millions of years before his birth and it didn't
> > > >bother him at all!
> >
> > Could there be degrees of non-existence? I mean, if we are
> > to believe the Big Bang egg-heads, Time itself was created 13
> > odd billion years or so ago. That suggests a four stage taxonomy
> > of non-being for each of us:
> >
> > * The Big Nada: Our non-existence before Time existed
> > * The Little Nada: Our non-existence in Time, but before
> > our birth.
> > * The Lesser Zilch: The aeons of our non-being stretching ahead
> > * The Greater Zilch: our non-being after Time ends.
> >
> > It's funny to think that "non being" could be differentiated.
> > But then they say that that funny quantum vacuum thing is
> > a not-nothing *thing* of emptiness and non-being (roughly ;-) ),
> > don't they?
>
>
> This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological Argument
> which goes like this:
I'm correcting an error due to typo in the KCA. Please, see the correction
below:
>
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE.
>
> 2. The universe began to exist.
>
> 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
>
> If you follow through this argument, you will find that God, the Prime Mover,
> is timeless, spaceless and omnipotent. But then again others here might
> disagree.
>
> As a footnote, this KCA is closely related to the ontological argument, such
> as the one proposed by Aquinas. If you accept the ontological argument, you
> would more likely agree with the KCA.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > Though it must have been the mother of all surprises when
> > > he found himself "waking up".
> > >
> > > ("Uh oh, here we go again"?)
> > >
> >
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological > Argument which goes like this: > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely an assumption on your part, one caused by not being able to conceive of the universe as eternal and never-created? If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, and thus point #3 is invalid. Puny humans, because they have a beginning and an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, don't mean shit to the universe. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
How do you know what you're saying is true? It sounds like you're telling us fairy tales bent to your own satisfation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > > Your views of Heaven and Hell are much too truncated. Don't you > realize that neither Heaven nor Hell is a simple projection of human > desires and fears? > > > > Heaven is whatever good you can imagine. Hell, though, is not that place > of torment you might visualize from past artwork or cinema. > > > > For instance, it actually rains in Hell. Bet they didn't tell you > that in church or on long rounding! > > Christian types I've discussed this with insist that this > "rain" is the tears of the Saints weeping at the many sins of > Hell's denizens. Of course, I dismiss such platitudes, coated as > they are with sentimental piety. I point out that this "falling > rain" which cools everyone is actually the effluence from the Saints > in Heaven as they spit at the sinners in Hell. The good and holy Saints > hate our sins so much they show their distaste this way. However, > because they are so holy with God's grace, this spittle down-flow is > experienced as moments of sweetness. > > > > Now isn't that wonderful? > > > > Of course, it doesn't last long because soon come whole armies of > avenging angels, hacking and eviscerating all those Hell beings to > demonstrate God's righteous wrath. > > > > Then, glory of glories, all the Hell beings are reborn in the same place > to do it again. > > > > The only escape? Join the opponents of God to oppose Him and His will. > After all, the chief opponent of God is still the greatest angel and > still his greatest lover. How else to get the beloved's attention > better than being opposed to Him? > > > > Yep, you don't learn this in Sunday school. > > > .. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, pranamoocher > wrote: > > > > > > > > One less Rakshasa to deal with... > > > > for now. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Osama bin Laden has been killed, according to the NYTimes. > > > > > President Obama will make an announcement shortly. > > > > > > > > > > Times has no further details; it attributes the report > > > > > to a U.S. official. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Death, 'tis a melancholy day > > > To those who have no God, > > > When the poor soul is forced away > > > To seek her last abode. > > > > > > In vain to heav'n she lifts her eyes, > > > For guilt a heavy chain, > > > Still drags her downward from the skies > > > To darkness, fire and pain. > > > > > > Actually he died a martyr and would be rewarded if his imaginary > afterlife was any more real than the other ones. Far from having a > melancholy day, he was all Godded up and probably as idiotically sure of > his future as David Koresh. > > > > The fantasy that nonbelievers are somehow punished for not buying in > to one of the many god beliefs is one of the tells of the true > compassionate status of believers. It isn't good enough for them to > enjoy eternity in Club Dead with all the perks of VIP membership, they > also revel in the idea that people who did not think as they did will > suffer eternally. Eternally. Here is how long that is. You are > standing in a check-out line with 10 people in front of you who all want > to use coupons AND pay by check. The shopping cart in front of you has > a kid in the seat facing you with a loose cough. And all the National > Enquirer stories that you are reading in line to kill time are about the > royal wedding. That is how long eternity is. > > > > Read about Pat Tillmen if you want to understand how a non believer > faces death. Well at least a heroic one. Christopher Hitchens is also > doing a good job dispelling the myth that you need the promise of a > lollipop if you are a good boy to face mortality. > > > > Atheists have no "I told you so" fantasies. There will be no "in your > face believers" for us. There will just be the same non existence that > existed for us before our birth about which Mark Twain wryly wrote that > he didn't exist for millions of years before his birth and it didn't > bother him at all! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >..Atheists have no "I told you so" fantasies. There will be no "in your
> > >face believers" for us. There will just be the same non existence that
> > >existed for us before our birth about which Mark Twain wryly wrote that he
> > >didn't exist for millions of years before his birth and it didn't bother
> > >him at all!
>
> Could there be degrees of non-existence? I mean, if we are
> to believe the Big Bang egg-heads, Time itself was created 13
> odd billion years or so ago. That suggests a four stage taxonomy
> of non-being for each of us:
>
> * The Big Nada: Our non-existence before Time existed
> * The Little Nada: Our non-existence in Time, but before
> our birth.
> * The Lesser Zilch: The aeons of our non-being stretching ahead
> * The Greater Zilch: our non-being after Time ends.
>
> It's funny to think that "non being" could be differentiated.
> But then they say that that funny quantum vacuum thing is
> a not-nothing *thing* of emptiness and non-being (roughly ;-) ),
> don't they?
This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which
goes like this:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
If you follow through this argument, you will find that God, the Prime Mover,
is timeless, spaceless and omnipotent. But then again others here might
disagree.
As a footnote, this KCA is closely related to the ontological argument, such as
the one proposed by Aquinas. If you accept the ontological argument, you would
more likely agree with the KCA.
>
> > Though it must have been the mother of all surprises when
> > he found himself "waking up".
> >
> > ("Uh oh, here we go again"?)
> >
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
Your views of Heaven and Hell are much too truncated. Don't you realize that neither Heaven nor Hell is a simple projection of human desires and fears? Heaven is whatever good you can imagine. Hell, though, is not that place of torment you might visualize from past artwork or cinema. For instance, it actually rains in Hell. Bet they didn't tell you that in church or on long rounding! Christian types I've discussed this with insist that this "rain" is the tears of the Saints weeping at the many sins of Hell's denizens. Of course, I dismiss such platitudes, coated as they are with sentimental piety. I point out that this "falling rain" which cools everyone is actually the effluence from the Saints in Heaven as they spit at the sinners in Hell. The good and holy Saints hate our sins so much they show their distaste this way. However, because they are so holy with God's grace, this spittle down-flow is experienced as moments of sweetness. Now isn't that wonderful? Of course, it doesn't last long because soon come whole armies of avenging angels, hacking and eviscerating all those Hell beings to demonstrate God's righteous wrath. Then, glory of glories, all the Hell beings are reborn in the same place to do it again. The only escape? Join the opponents of God to oppose Him and His will. After all, the chief opponent of God is still the greatest angel and still his greatest lover. How else to get the beloved's attention better than being opposed to Him? Yep, you don't learn this in Sunday school. .. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, pranamoocher wrote: > > > > > > One less Rakshasa to deal with... > > > for now. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > Osama bin Laden has been killed, according to the NYTimes. > > > > President Obama will make an announcement shortly. > > > > > > > > Times has no further details; it attributes the report > > > > to a U.S. official. > > > > > > > > > > > Death, 'tis a melancholy day > > To those who have no God, > > When the poor soul is forced away > > To seek her last abode. > > > > In vain to heav'n she lifts her eyes, > > For guilt a heavy chain, > > Still drags her downward from the skies > > To darkness, fire and pain. > > > Actually he died a martyr and would be rewarded if his imaginary afterlife was any more real than the other ones. Far from having a melancholy day, he was all Godded up and probably as idiotically sure of his future as David Koresh. > > The fantasy that nonbelievers are somehow punished for not buying in to one of the many god beliefs is one of the tells of the true compassionate status of believers. It isn't good enough for them to enjoy eternity in Club Dead with all the perks of VIP membership, they also revel in the idea that people who did not think as they did will suffer eternally. Eternally. Here is how long that is. You are standing in a check-out line with 10 people in front of you who all want to use coupons AND pay by check. The shopping cart in front of you has a kid in the seat facing you with a loose cough. And all the National Enquirer stories that you are reading in line to kill time are about the royal wedding. That is how long eternity is. > > Read about Pat Tillmen if you want to understand how a non believer faces death. Well at least a heroic one. Christopher Hitchens is also doing a good job dispelling the myth that you need the promise of a lollipop if you are a good boy to face mortality. > > Atheists have no "I told you so" fantasies. There will be no "in your face believers" for us. There will just be the same non existence that existed for us before our birth about which Mark Twain wryly wrote that he didn't exist for millions of years before his birth and it didn't bother him at all! > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > Actually he [OBM] died a martyr and would be rewarded > if his imaginary afterlife was any more real than the > other ones. Far from having a melancholy day, he was > all Godded up and probably as idiotically sure of his > future as David Koresh. > > The fantasy that nonbelievers are somehow punished for > not buying in to one of the many god beliefs is one of > the tells of the true compassionate status of believers. > It isn't good enough for them to enjoy eternity in Club > Dead with all the perks of VIP membership, they also > revel in the idea that people who did not think as they > did will suffer eternally. Eternally. What I'm thinkin' is that if the Muslim notion of martyrdom is correct, there are a lot of VERY nervous virgins in heaven right now. Down on earth, Muslim virgins right and left are going out and getting laid just so that if they die they aren't stuck with suck-Osama's-dick duty in the afterlife.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > Barry, you are the asshole here. Please don't speak for the > rest of us. Remember the bumper sticker as it applies to you: > MEAN PEOPLE SUCK. Brian, because you probably don't know, Jim (whynotnow) is one of the self-proclaimed ENLIGHTENED on this forum. Why just a day or so ago he said the following about how the enlightened (like him) were able to "meet each moment with freshness, innocence, and clarity." He has "more attention" to bring to anything he does, "including interacting with others." He has a "softer, yet more effective demeanor" than the rest of us non- enlightened peons, doncha know. :-) Wait'll you see how Mr. I-Can-Carry-On-A-Vendetta- Against-The-Guy-Who-Doesn't-Think-I'm-Worth-Pissing- On-Much-Less-Conversing-With-For-Years reacts to *this*. THAT is the TM version of "enlightenment." By all means, move to Fairfield if that's how you want to turn out. :-) On the other hand, given the way you flew off the handle and threw a tantrum just because people didn't rush to embrace you the way you expected them to, maybe you're already TM-enlightened. :-) > On Tuesday Jimbo posted: > > Relative to being selfless, what I have heard from many of > those who are realized is about the huge reduction of thoughts > in the mind during daily life, post-awakening. > > The mind is not stuck in "drive" any longer, relentlessly > shoving forward the concept of a self. This simple change > allows someone realized to meet each moment with more > freshness, innocence and clarity. The term "restful alertness" > comes out of the closet. More attention is available to devote > to anything we want to do, including interacting with others. > > I agree with the mystery poster too that personality remains > pretty much the same, pre- and post-awakening, with a softer > yet more effective demeanor over time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Changing the Osama Narrative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > "Deathers", eh? Maybe since everyone is into name calling we > should label those who blinding believe what the MSM and > government dishes out: "Suckers." There are folks who believe everything the MSM and the government tells them just on principle, regardless of the evidence or likelihood; and there are folks who *disbelieve* everything the MSM and the government tells them just on principle, regardless of the evidence or likelihood. And then there are people who *weigh* the evidence and the likelihood just on principle, and then decide selectively on that basis what to believe, what not to believe, and what to remain agnostic about. For example, I have no trouble whatsoever believing this is not only possible but likely: "Osama Bin Laden's daughter has claimed he was captured alive in his Pakistani hideout and then shot by U.S. special forces, it was reported today. "Arabic news network Al-Arabiya quoted 'senior Pakistani security officials' who said the 12-year-old saw her father executed and his body dragged to a helicopter." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383106/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Wife-watched-die-White-House-reveals-WASNT-armed.html#ixzz1LOwypUJ4 http://tinyurl.com/3tddy8n > I first heard years ago that Bin Laden had been killed in > the Tora Bora fight in December 2001 but not enough > remained of his body for the US to claim he had been > killed. That's why I made the joke about growing a body > in a lab somewhere. This story was reaffirmed by many > sources including former intelligence officers. So that > is why when they started saying that the announcement was > going to be about him being killed over the weekend that > the bovine excretion meter went off. Mmm-hmm. This certainly outweighs all the evidence that he was killed on Sunday. Several Taliban officials have also claimed over the years that he was dead. But now they're claiming he's still alive.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Changing the Osama Narrative
On 05/03/2011 09:13 PM, raunchydog wrote: > Deathers aren't the only ones who want to see Osama's photos and you're right > there's no convincing them no matter what. However, many people around the > world for various reasons want to see photos. We should see the photos and > when we do, I'll shut up about it. > > "But now the inability of the United States to produce a body is raising > doubts around the world about the death of Al Qaeda's leader. At the same > time, interested parties ranging from members of Congress to family members > of 9/11 victims are calling for a release of photos the US military possesses > of Mr. bin Laden's body to allow for a sense of closure." > > http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0503/Bin-Laden-alive-To-debunk-latest-myth-White-House-near-release-of-photo "Deathers", eh? Maybe since everyone is into name calling we should label those who blinding believe what the MSM and government dishes out: "Suckers." I first heard years ago that Bin Laden had been killed in the Tora Bora fight in December 2001 but not enough remained of his body for the US to claim he had been killed. That's why I made the joke about growing a body in a lab somewhere. This story was reaffirmed by many sources including former intelligence officers. So that is why when they started saying that the announcement was going to be about him being killed over the weekend that the bovine excretion meter went off. Couple that with the bogus Bin Laden videos that have been dished over the and the meter goes even higher. And it ain't just conservatives raising the flag. It's people like talk host Mike Malloy who certainly is no conservative. Or Karel on his KGO show, who I happened to be listening to when the breaking news of Obama's nation address came on. Karel warned the engineer that whenever Obama spoke during his shows he wanted his mike on so he could comment over it. Karel is gay and definitely NOT conservative. He takes no prisoners so is fun to listen to. Those of us who have known intelligence ops, worked in government and even had relatives in intelligence know the public story isn't alway true and are often "cover ups." Sometimes they are things you can't even talk about in fear that the gov will figure out who leaked. Just remember that little statement right before the tape would burn up on the old "Mission Impossible" TV series: "As always, should you or any of your IM force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> >..Atheists have no "I told you so" fantasies. There will be no "in your
> >face believers" for us. There will just be the same non existence that
> >existed for us before our birth about which Mark Twain wryly wrote that he
> >didn't exist for millions of years before his birth and it didn't bother him
> >at all!
Could there be degrees of non-existence? I mean, if we are
to believe the Big Bang egg-heads, Time itself was created 13
odd billion years or so ago. That suggests a four stage taxonomy
of non-being for each of us:
* The Big Nada: Our non-existence before Time existed
* The Little Nada: Our non-existence in Time, but before
our birth.
* The Lesser Zilch: The aeons of our non-being stretching ahead
* The Greater Zilch: our non-being after Time ends.
It's funny to think that "non being" could be differentiated.
But then they say that that funny quantum vacuum thing is
a not-nothing *thing* of emptiness and non-being (roughly ;-) ),
don't they?
> Though it must have been the mother of all surprises when
> he found himself "waking up".
>
> ("Uh oh, here we go again"?)
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
Curtis, Another nice piece. Your talent is wasted here. When ya gunna blog? Edg wrote: > Actually he died a martyr and would be rewarded if his imaginary afterlife > was any more real than the other ones. Far from having a melancholy day, he > was all Godded up and probably as idiotically sure of his future as David > Koresh. > > The fantasy that nonbelievers are somehow punished for not buying in to one > of the many god beliefs is one of the tells of the true compassionate status > of believers. It isn't good enough for them to enjoy eternity in Club Dead > with all the perks of VIP membership, they also revel in the idea that people > who did not think as they did will suffer eternally. Eternally. Here is how > long that is. You are standing in a check-out line with 10 people in front > of you who all want to use coupons AND pay by check. The shopping cart in > front of you has a kid in the seat facing you with a loose cough. And all > the National Enquirer stories that you are reading in line to kill time are > about the royal wedding. That is how long eternity is. > > Read about Pat Tillmen if you want to understand how a non believer faces > death. Well at least a heroic one. Christopher Hitchens is also doing a > good job dispelling the myth that you need the promise of a lollipop if you > are a good boy to face mortality. > > Atheists have no "I told you so" fantasies. There will be no "in your face > believers" for us. There will just be the same non existence that existed > for us before our birth about which Mark Twain wryly wrote that he didn't > exist for millions of years before his birth and it didn't bother him at all! > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
>..Atheists have no "I told you so" fantasies. There will be no "in your face
>believers" for us. There will just be the same non existence that existed for
>us before our birth about which Mark Twain wryly wrote that he didn't exist
>for millions of years before his birth and it didn't bother him at all!
Though it must have been the mother of all surprises when
he found himself "waking up".
("Uh oh, here we go again"?)
[FairfieldLife] How Wall Street and the Toxic Philosophy of Ayn Rand Are Destroying Our Retirements
How Wall Street and the Toxic Philosophy of Ayn Rand Are Destroying Our Retirements By Les Leopold, AlterNet Posted on May 3, 2011, Printed on May 4, 2011 http://www.alternet.org/story/150820/ how_wall_street_and_the_toxic_philosophy_of_ayn_rand_are_destroying_our_ retirements It’s tough growing old. And it’s even tougher growing old in America -- unless you’re rich. It used to be that you could count on two pensions – social security and a pension from your employer. But now work-related pensions are an endangered species and Social Security is under assault from a lethal combination of Wall Street’s insatiable greed and the pernicious philosophy of Ayn Rand. For much of the post-WWII period, private sector workers could count on decent, defined benefit pension funds that paid a fixed monthly amount for as long as you lived. Most also included options that allowed your spouse to receive benefits for the rest of his or her life after you died. You felt like you could survive into your golden years and provide for your loved ones. Defined benefit plans are much more secure than 401(k)s, which end when the money runs out. The odds are that you will quickly outlive your 401(k). In fact, the average 401(k) has a balance of only $45,519, and 46 percent of all 401(k)s are worth less than $10,000. Twenty-five years ago, 80 percent of large and medium-sized firms offered defined benefit pension plans. Today only 21 percent have them. And half of all full-time workers (and most part-time workers as well) have no workplace retirement plans at all. The Premeditated Murder of Private Pension Funds The birth and death of private pension funds are directly connected to the rise and decline of unions. In 1955, more than one in three private sector workers belonged to a union and those unions fought hard for pensions and health care benefits. Currently fewer than 7 percent of all private sector workers are in unions so private employers feel little pressure to provide such benefits. Corporate America has stopped offering pensions because it doesn’t have to. But corporations do feel enormous pressure to deliver higher profits on a quarterly basis to meet Wall Street expectations. This pressure has led to more movement of facilities overseas, more efforts to keep wages down, more anti-union crusades and more cuts in benefits. Public Employee Pensions now on the Block While unions were being crushed in the private sector, they grew rapidly among public sector workers. Today more than 35 percent of public employees belong to unions and low and behold, 76 percent of these workers still have defined benefit plans. So doesn’t that mean that public employees are overpaid and killing our state and local governments? NO! Every reputable study shows that public sector workers do not receive more total compensation than their counterparts in the private sector when you compare them by education and experience – the proper way to compare workers across industries and sectors. In fact, public employees earn a little bit less in actual wages than their private sector counterparts, but, they make it up in benefits. (See the excellent report by Jeffery Keefe of the Economic Policy Institute.) Public Pensions Poisoned by Wall Street Unfortunately, public sector pension plans are in trouble and we can thank Wall Street for that as well. Writing for Bloomberg Markets, David Evans describes Wall Street’s systematic efforts to sell toxic assets to public pension funds. They didn’t just peddle risky mortgage-backed securities and CDOs filled to the brim with liars- loans and such. Wall Street firms actually pushed pension funds to buy the bottom slice (the equity tranche) that would be the first one to fail in case the housing market declined (which it did later that year). How bad were these securities? They were so bad that even the whorish rating agencies, which doled out high ratings for their Wall Street johns without blushing, refused to rate these equity tranches. Nevertheless, pension funds foolishly trusted their bankers and bought 18 percent of all of these unrated slices. Today these investments are worthless, costing pension tens of billions of dollars in losses. But this is just tip of this toxic iceberg. For every equity tranche there were dozens of “rated” slices that were pedaled by Wall Street to state and local pension funds as well. Even those with AAA ratings have gone under. This means that even the most cautious pension funds that held to strict rules prohibiting investments in risky, unrated securities got totally screwed by Wall Street and the bogus AAA ratings. To my knowledge, no one yet has totaled up the amount of toxic crap sold to public pensions. That’s because pension fund managers don’t want to admit how stupid they were to trust Wall Street banks and the rati
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, pranamoocher wrote: > > > > One less Rakshasa to deal with... > > for now. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Osama bin Laden has been killed, according to the NYTimes. > > > President Obama will make an announcement shortly. > > > > > > Times has no further details; it attributes the report > > > to a U.S. official. > > > > > > > Death, 'tis a melancholy day > To those who have no God, > When the poor soul is forced away > To seek her last abode. > > In vain to heav'n she lifts her eyes, > For guilt a heavy chain, > Still drags her downward from the skies > To darkness, fire and pain. Actually he died a martyr and would be rewarded if his imaginary afterlife was any more real than the other ones. Far from having a melancholy day, he was all Godded up and probably as idiotically sure of his future as David Koresh. The fantasy that nonbelievers are somehow punished for not buying in to one of the many god beliefs is one of the tells of the true compassionate status of believers. It isn't good enough for them to enjoy eternity in Club Dead with all the perks of VIP membership, they also revel in the idea that people who did not think as they did will suffer eternally. Eternally. Here is how long that is. You are standing in a check-out line with 10 people in front of you who all want to use coupons AND pay by check. The shopping cart in front of you has a kid in the seat facing you with a loose cough. And all the National Enquirer stories that you are reading in line to kill time are about the royal wedding. That is how long eternity is. Read about Pat Tillmen if you want to understand how a non believer faces death. Well at least a heroic one. Christopher Hitchens is also doing a good job dispelling the myth that you need the promise of a lollipop if you are a good boy to face mortality. Atheists have no "I told you so" fantasies. There will be no "in your face believers" for us. There will just be the same non existence that existed for us before our birth about which Mark Twain wryly wrote that he didn't exist for millions of years before his birth and it didn't bother him at all! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
You seen that Fairfield Directory of Active Spiritual Practice Groups? Some of them may put up with outsiders like you. There's always a lot spiritually going on: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/271767 > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > No replies? > > > > > > > > > > Hey, 1. most people here on Ffldlife do not live in Fairfield at > > > > > all, have only visited or lived there, as you did, years ago > > > > > 2. Lots of us don't check in to Ffldlife all day long and won't > > > > > even read your first post until tomorrow > > > > > 3. From what I gather, you can pretty much do what you want in > > > > > Fairfield - hang with whatever crowd you like. There are still > > > > > true believers but it seems the numbers who take all the rules > > > > > seriously have dwindled to a small group. It sounds as if people > > > > > create their own approach to life and spirituality if so inclined. > > > > > > > > Brian asked about the gestapo, and it should be pointed out that the > > > > people who decide who gets to have a dome badge are still very serious > > > > about enforcing rules. If they catch wind of people going to see > > > > saints, etc., they will yank their dome badges. > > > > > > > > > Which ofcourse, is a very good thing ! > > > > > > > Yep the movement parted ways with its meditators some while ago. Even > > paying people now to meditate there are only a small few hundreds from town > > meditating together anymore in the domes. But mostly there is a tremendous > > amount spiritually going on in town otherwise that balances the poor > > showing on campus. It's a great place to Be. A fun and fine spiritual > > community. Come along if you have something good to add. > > > > You seen the Fairfield Directory of Active Spiritual Practice Groups? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
Barry, you are the asshole here. Please don't speak for the rest of us. Remember the bumper sticker as it applies to you: MEAN PEOPLE SUCK. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > > > No replies? > > > > OK, that answers my question. You are all lost in your self > > creted world, outside of reality, while thinking you are > > creating reality. > > This asshole will fit right in. So self important > that he's bitching that no one replied to his post > after only three hours. Many people here had to > wait years before we deigned to talk with them. :-) > > > Has anyone here done anything to help the poor or homeless, > > Japan? Oh, yea do a yagya, but don't get your hands dirty. > > Go to your dome that I helped build when intentions meant > > something other than narcisistic fantasy's. > > > > Good luck on your fantasy, that is all it is. > > Someone's got a serious 'tude problem. > > Brian, meet Ravi and Willytex. I'm sure you'll > get along. :-) > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I may know some of you from 79-80 when I was there. I am thinking about > > > moving back after 30 years. > > > > > > Would I get culture shock? I helped build the first dome and that was > > > cool. Life was simple, and we were all on the same mission. > > > > > > Now I read that my house has to face east, Bevan is still there, Larry > > > Domash is long gone and there are lots of guys that paid a million bucks > > > to wear a crown. What is up with thatkinda scary IMO. > > > > > > So, my earnest question is..if I return, is there still the spirit of > > > a cause for enlightenment and making the world a better place? Also have > > > the gestapo gone away, or are they still a force to keep us in line? > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any input, this is a big decision. > > > > > > Brian > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: 6-th St., Austin, Texas
Yifu: > I hope things have improved since then. > http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/5/49922.jpg > You poor dumb shit - those are venues for live music. http://www.austinchronicle.com/calendar/music/ http://www.austin360.com/ Not too far down the street is where Robert Johnson once recorded 'Crossroads'. You need to get some smarts, Bloke, and get out more often! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Johnson_(musician) 'Crossroads' The Life and Afterlife of Blues Legend Robert Johnson By Tom Graves http://tinyurl.com/3b7unqm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
'They got some crazy little women there'...! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I may know some of you from 79-80 when I was there. I am thinking about > moving back after 30 years. > > Would I get culture shock? I helped build the first dome and that was cool. > Life was simple, and we were all on the same mission. > > Now I read that my house has to face east, Bevan is still there, Larry Domash > is long gone and there are lots of guys that paid a million bucks to wear a > crown. What is up with thatkinda scary IMO. > > So, my earnest question is..if I return, is there still the spirit of a > cause for enlightenment and making the world a better place? Also have the > gestapo gone away, or are they still a force to keep us in line? > > Thanks in advance for any input, this is a big decision. > > Brian >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, pranamoocher wrote: > > One less Rakshasa to deal with... > for now. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Osama bin Laden has been killed, according to the NYTimes. > > President Obama will make an announcement shortly. > > > > Times has no further details; it attributes the report > > to a U.S. official. > > > Death, 'tis a melancholy day To those who have no God, When the poor soul is forced away To seek her last abode. In vain to heav'n she lifts her eyes, For guilt a heavy chain, Still drags her downward from the skies To darkness, fire and pain.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
Explains why everyone's been avoiding me~~ I *knew* it had to be something! I'm just glad it's not bad breath. On May 4, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > Uh, no one? And what am I, chopped basil? :) Not just basil, but the holiest of Holy Basil. Going to see you will get a person kicked out of the dome for seven lifetimes! > On May 4, 2011, at 7:34 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: >> >> No replies? >> >> OK, that answers my question. You are all lost in your self >> creted world, outside of reality, while thinking you are >> creating reality. > > This asshole will fit right in. So self important > that he's bitching that no one replied to his post > after only three hours. Many people here had to > wait years before we deigned to talk with them. :-) > > Sal > To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No replies? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey, 1. most people here on Ffldlife do not live in Fairfield at > > > > > > all, have only visited or lived there, as you did, years ago > > > > > > 2. Lots of us don't check in to Ffldlife all day long and won't > > > > > > even read your first post until tomorrow > > > > > > 3. From what I gather, you can pretty much do what you want in > > > > > > Fairfield - hang with whatever crowd you like. There are still > > > > > > true believers but it seems the numbers who take all the rules > > > > > > seriously have dwindled to a small group. It sounds as if people > > > > > > create their own approach to life and spirituality if so inclined. > > > > > > > > > > Brian asked about the gestapo, and it should be pointed out that the > > > > > people who decide who gets to have a dome badge are still very > > > > > serious about enforcing rules. If they catch wind of people going to > > > > > see saints, etc., they will yank their dome badges. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which ofcourse, is a very good thing ! > > > > > > > > > > Yep the movement parted ways with its meditators some while ago. Even > > > paying people now to meditate there are only a small few hundreds from > > > town meditating together anymore in the domes. But mostly there is a > > > tremendous amount spiritually going on in town otherwise that balances > > > the poor showing on campus. It's a great place to Be. A fun and fine > > > spiritual community. Come along if you have something good to add. > > > > > > > You seen the Fairfield Directory of Active Spiritual Practice Groups? > > > > The Ammachi satsang and Karunamayi satsang committees are getting ready now > to host both saints in a few weeks. These are some of the best weeks to be > around the Fairfield meditating community. A lot of people come out of the > woodwork when the lady-saints come through every year. It's the best of > times to be in Fairfield spiritually. If you are coming for a visit that is > a great time to see folks. > > -Buck in FF > Bill Bauman visits in a few weeks too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > No replies? > > > > > > > > > > Hey, 1. most people here on Ffldlife do not live in Fairfield at > > > > > all, have only visited or lived there, as you did, years ago > > > > > 2. Lots of us don't check in to Ffldlife all day long and won't > > > > > even read your first post until tomorrow > > > > > 3. From what I gather, you can pretty much do what you want in > > > > > Fairfield - hang with whatever crowd you like. There are still > > > > > true believers but it seems the numbers who take all the rules > > > > > seriously have dwindled to a small group. It sounds as if people > > > > > create their own approach to life and spirituality if so inclined. > > > > > > > > Brian asked about the gestapo, and it should be pointed out that the > > > > people who decide who gets to have a dome badge are still very serious > > > > about enforcing rules. If they catch wind of people going to see > > > > saints, etc., they will yank their dome badges. > > > > > > > > > Which ofcourse, is a very good thing ! > > > > > > > Yep the movement parted ways with its meditators some while ago. Even > > paying people now to meditate there are only a small few hundreds from town > > meditating together anymore in the domes. But mostly there is a tremendous > > amount spiritually going on in town otherwise that balances the poor > > showing on campus. It's a great place to Be. A fun and fine spiritual > > community. Come along if you have something good to add. > > > > You seen the Fairfield Directory of Active Spiritual Practice Groups? > The Ammachi satsang and Karunamayi satsang committees are getting ready now to host both saints in a few weeks. These are some of the best weeks to be around the Fairfield meditating community. A lot of people come out of the woodwork when the lady-saints come through every year. It's the best of times to be in Fairfield spiritually. If you are coming for a visit that is a great time to see folks. -Buck in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > No replies? > > > > > > > > Hey, 1. most people here on Ffldlife do not live in Fairfield at > > > > all, have only visited or lived there, as you did, years ago > > > > 2. Lots of us don't check in to Ffldlife all day long and won't > > > > even read your first post until tomorrow > > > > 3. From what I gather, you can pretty much do what you want in > > > > Fairfield - hang with whatever crowd you like. There are still > > > > true believers but it seems the numbers who take all the rules > > > > seriously have dwindled to a small group. It sounds as if people > > > > create their own approach to life and spirituality if so inclined. > > > > > > Brian asked about the gestapo, and it should be pointed out that the > > > people who decide who gets to have a dome badge are still very serious > > > about enforcing rules. If they catch wind of people going to see saints, > > > etc., they will yank their dome badges. > > > > > > Which ofcourse, is a very good thing ! > > > > Yep the movement parted ways with its meditators some while ago. Even paying > people now to meditate there are only a small few hundreds from town > meditating together anymore in the domes. But mostly there is a tremendous > amount spiritually going on in town otherwise that balances the poor showing > on campus. It's a great place to Be. A fun and fine spiritual community. > Come along if you have something good to add. > You seen the Fairfield Directory of Active Spiritual Practice Groups?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > > > > > > > No replies? > > > > > > Hey, 1. most people here on Ffldlife do not live in Fairfield at > > > all, have only visited or lived there, as you did, years ago > > > 2. Lots of us don't check in to Ffldlife all day long and won't > > > even read your first post until tomorrow > > > 3. From what I gather, you can pretty much do what you want in > > > Fairfield - hang with whatever crowd you like. There are still > > > true believers but it seems the numbers who take all the rules > > > seriously have dwindled to a small group. It sounds as if people > > > create their own approach to life and spirituality if so inclined. > > > > Brian asked about the gestapo, and it should be pointed out that the people > > who decide who gets to have a dome badge are still very serious about > > enforcing rules. If they catch wind of people going to see saints, etc., > > they will yank their dome badges. > > > Which ofcourse, is a very good thing ! > Yep the movement parted ways with its meditators some while ago. Even paying people now to meditate there are only a small few hundreds from town meditating together anymore in the domes. But mostly there is a tremendous amount spiritually going on in town otherwise that balances the poor showing on campus. It's a great place to Be. A fun and fine spiritual community. Come along if you have something good to add.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > > > > > No replies? > > > > Hey, 1. most people here on Ffldlife do not live in Fairfield at > > all, have only visited or lived there, as you did, years ago > > 2. Lots of us don't check in to Ffldlife all day long and won't > > even read your first post until tomorrow > > 3. From what I gather, you can pretty much do what you want in > > Fairfield - hang with whatever crowd you like. There are still > > true believers but it seems the numbers who take all the rules > > seriously have dwindled to a small group. It sounds as if people > > create their own approach to life and spirituality if so inclined. > > Brian asked about the gestapo, and it should be pointed out that the people > who decide who gets to have a dome badge are still very serious about > enforcing rules. If they catch wind of people going to see saints, etc., they > will yank their dome badges. Which ofcourse, is a very good thing !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > Uh, no one? And what am I, chopped basil? :) Not just basil, but the holiest of Holy Basil. Going to see you will get a person kicked out of the dome for seven lifetimes! > On May 4, 2011, at 7:34 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > > > No replies? > > > > OK, that answers my question. You are all lost in your self > > creted world, outside of reality, while thinking you are > > creating reality. > > This asshole will fit right in. So self important > that he's bitching that no one replied to his post > after only three hours. Many people here had to > wait years before we deigned to talk with them. :-) > > Sal >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > Uh, no one? And what am I, chopped basil? :) > > On May 4, 2011, at 7:34 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > > > No replies? > > > > OK, that answers my question. You are all lost in your self > > creted world, outside of reality, while thinking you are > > creating reality. > > This asshole will fit right in. So self important > that he's bitching that no one replied to his post > after only three hours. Many people here had to > wait years before we deigned to talk with them. :-) > > Sal > yep, most of us in Fairfield are way too busy with spiritual practices to waste much time in the relative here. And, you sound like you could spend more time coming out of meditation. If you're coming back to meditate, there are some TM peace palaces out in the world, you may wish to have your mediation checked before you return to Fairfield. It evidently would be good. It's a very powerful and special place in the world here spiritually. Hopefully you'll get along. JGD, -Buck in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: Speed Chapati
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDQOBpzUQMg I kept thinking, "carpal tunnal" and "inconsistent thickness of the chapatis". But what a show! >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
Uh, no one? And what am I, chopped basil? :) On May 4, 2011, at 7:34 AM, turquoiseb wrote: - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > No replies? > > OK, that answers my question. You are all lost in your self > creted world, outside of reality, while thinking you are > creating reality. This asshole will fit right in. So self important that he's bitching that no one replied to his post after only three hours. Many people here had to wait years before we deigned to talk with them. :-) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > No replies? > > OK, that answers my question. You are all lost in your self > creted world, outside of reality, while thinking you are > creating reality. This asshole will fit right in. So self important that he's bitching that no one replied to his post after only three hours. Many people here had to wait years before we deigned to talk with them. :-) > Has anyone here done anything to help the poor or homeless, > Japan? Oh, yea do a yagya, but don't get your hands dirty. > Go to your dome that I helped build when intentions meant > something other than narcisistic fantasy's. > > Good luck on your fantasy, that is all it is. Someone's got a serious 'tude problem. Brian, meet Ravi and Willytex. I'm sure you'll get along. :-) > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I may know some of you from 79-80 when I was there. I am thinking about > > moving back after 30 years. > > > > Would I get culture shock? I helped build the first dome and that was cool. > > Life was simple, and we were all on the same mission. > > > > Now I read that my house has to face east, Bevan is still there, Larry > > Domash is long gone and there are lots of guys that paid a million bucks to > > wear a crown. What is up with thatkinda scary IMO. > > > > So, my earnest question is..if I return, is there still the spirit of a > > cause for enlightenment and making the world a better place? Also have the > > gestapo gone away, or are they still a force to keep us in line? > > > > Thanks in advance for any input, this is a big decision. > > > > Brian > > >
[FairfieldLife] To Raunchy on Behalf of Hillary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhpu2N4rQZM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Changing the Osama Narrative
Raunchy, you're making a fool of yourself. He wasn't dead, but he sure is now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > So what do *you* suspect went on that you need to see the > > > > video before you'll be convinced otherwise? > > > > > > > I don't know went on. They say they killed Osama. But > > > there have been so many reports over the years that > > > Osama was dead, it's hard to believe he just popped up > > > from nowhere almost nine years later just in time for > > > Obama's reelection. > > > > So you're suspicious of everything the government is > > saying about having monitored the compound since last > > September, after finally having tracked down the > > courier they'd been looking for since 2002? They say > > they weren't even sure he was there. But now it > > appears he'd been living there for several years. He > > didn't just "pop up," they just recently became aware > > of where he'd been sitting comfortably for some time. > > > > Do we know if they tracked the courier because they knew Osama was alive or > is it possible they knew Osama was dead but tracked the courier for reasons > we don't know about, perhaps to find other persons of interest? Becoming > aware just recently of where Osama was sounds like popping up from nowhere to > me. > > > If the whole thing was engineered to guarantee Obama's > > reelection, why do you think they didn't wait until, > > say, October 2012? Or why not do it in October 2010? > > After all, if the raid was just a government setup, if > > there was no Osama in the first place, they could have > > arranged for it to happen at any time. Why wouldn't > > they have it take place a month before the election, > > either the last one or the coming one? > > > > I don't know if the whole thing was engineered to guarantee Obama's > reelection, it just happens to be conveniently during an election cycle. > October 2010? Obama didn't do a fucking thing to help Democrats in 2010 and > wasn't going to. Everyone was left to fend for themselves and now we have a > bunch of asshole governors bent on busting public service unions, trashing > women's reproductive health and privatizing anything that isn't bolted down. > Why wait until 2012 when he has all this time to trade on killing Osama and > sharpen his foreign policy chops? > > > As it is, while it'll give Obama a bump in the ratings, > > it's unlikely to last very long. The state of the > > economy around election time will be *vastly* more > > influential than this will. > > > > Believe it, Obama is going to milk the bump in his ratings for all it's > worth. The President who killed Osama bin Laden is the stuff of legends. By > the time the election rolls around, a servile media will have once again > helped Obama gain the stature of a mythical hero. > > The state of the economy will probably be pretty shitty, but the Republicans > have so overplayed their hand on budget cuts that independents will probably > abandon tea party lunatics for Obama who will seem a savior by comparison. > > > > Since Pakistan has protected Osama all these years I > > > can only speculate they may have fabricated the stories > > > of his death. > > > > Unless you discount everything the government has said, > > they've been hunting intensively for bin Laden ever since > > he disappeared at Tora Bora. Unless they're lying through > > their teeth, they didn't take any of these death stories > > seriously. And indeed, there's no solid evidence for any > > of them. > > > > I mean, of the reports you listed, the only one that's a > > flat assertion (rather than a speculation) by a nonanonymous > > person is the one from Benazir Bhutto, in an interview with > > David Frost. But several times *after* that interview, she > > publicly spoke about bin Laden as if she assumed he was > > still alive. > > > > See this: > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IIn_UnLO9I > > > > His conjecture that she misspoke and meant to say "Daniel > > Pearl" is a little shaky, but her references to bin Laden > > as alive after interview do suggest that either it was some > > weird slip of the tongue, or she found out immediately > > after the interview that he *hadn't* been killed. > > > > As to the anonymous Taliban officials, I'm not inclined to > > take anything they say as more reliable than what our > > government says. In any case, today the Taliban is ranting > > that bin Laden *wasn't* killed on Sunday, that he's still > > very much alive, that it's all a nefarious plot by the U.S. > > > > Make up your minds, guys! > > > > So you really can't take any of those earlier reports, much > > less the conjectures, as any kind of solid support for his > > having died previously. > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I may know some of you from 79-80 when I was there. I am thinking about > > moving back after 30 years. > > > > Would I get culture shock? I helped build the first dome and that was cool. > > Life was simple, and we were all on the same mission. > > > > Now I read that my house has to face east, Bevan is still there, Larry > > Domash is long gone and there are lots of guys that paid a million bucks to > > wear a crown. What is up with thatkinda scary IMO. > > > > So, my earnest question is..if I return, is there still the spirit of a > > cause for enlightenment and making the world a better place? Also have the > > gestapo gone away, or are they still a force to keep us in line? > > > > Thanks in advance for any input, this is a big decision. > > > > Brian > > > > The hall monitors still check your pass to make sure you're doing > a squeaky clean TMO program only in the dome, which IMO is a > reasonable requirement. Living in an east facing house is a > personal choice not a requirement. Welcome home. Paying a million bucks to live in a Burger King commercial is also optional, albeit highly recommended.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brianbmurr" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I may know some of you from 79-80 when I was there. I am thinking about > moving back after 30 years. > > Would I get culture shock? I helped build the first dome and that was cool. > Life was simple, and we were all on the same mission. > > Now I read that my house has to face east, Bevan is still there, Larry Domash > is long gone and there are lots of guys that paid a million bucks to wear a > crown. What is up with thatkinda scary IMO. > > So, my earnest question is..if I return, is there still the spirit of a > cause for enlightenment and making the world a better place? Also have the > gestapo gone away, or are they still a force to keep us in line? > > Thanks in advance for any input, this is a big decision. > > Brian > The hall monitors still check your pass to make sure you're doing a squeaky clean TMO program only in the dome, which IMO is a reasonable requirement. Living in an east facing house is a personal choice not a requirement. Welcome home.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Thinking about moving back to Fairfield
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: > Peter, it's a 4.5 hour drive by my map~~is that difficult? > > I drove from Milwaukee to Madison one weekend during Winter. Easy it wasn't. Traffic to and fro that made the trip very unpleasant. You must be a lot more easygoing on the road than I am.
