Re: [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with
bin Laden bragged on video about how his predictions about what would happen when the planes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 turned out to be the most accurate. Claiming that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11 is kinda strange. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : And remember I don't think Al Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11. Remember that Presidents take office and get a come to Jesus talk. I hear this even is happening now to Senators and Congressmen. We don't have a democracy anymore. We expected change with Obama and didn't get it. Same ol', same ol'. On 01/14/2015 12:58 PM, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Gore was quite paranoid about Al Qaeda. Had he received a daily briefing about Osama bin Laden determined to attack the United States, his order of response would have easily ben an order of magnitude greater than Bush's. Remember: he headed an investigation of terrorism while Vice-President that made many recommendations that were ignored by Congress until after 9/11, and was laughed at by Bush administration officials during his transitional briefing when he warned them that Al Qaeda would be the biggest headache they faced. ALL of the major players in the Bush Administration had been selected because they had the attitude that government-sponsored violence and terrorism was the only real threat. Worrying about privately funded terrorism, and acts by small groups and organizations who were unaffiliated with any national government were virtually mocked by all of them in public, at one time or another. They were still fighting the US vs USSR cold war by policy and attitude, when they took office. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote : YES BUT would have Gore done anything different than Bush? Would there have still been a 9/11? Remember Presidents are just a late night TV car salesmen and it's about the people behind them that counts. On 01/14/2015 11:33 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... mailto:mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Started reading the article but when your argument is based on a false premise, well the whole thing starts to fall apart and why bother reading the rest. Please, the Supreme Court did not install W. The Supreme Court told Florida that they could not change the election laws in the middle of an election to get a different outcome. The election laws were followed to the letter. There were three recounts and Bush won each one. Obviously, the democrats wanted as many recounts as it would take to get just one with a Gore majority and then that settles it. With the shenanigans going on,Dimpled chads being interpreted and Democratic precinct leaders with voting machines in the trunks of their cars, sooner or later the votes would have been manufactured to get the desired out come, another stolen election.. From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:00 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with And a really good answer to it, from an ex-pat living in Norway: Is the U.S. Crazy? Is the U.S. Crazy? Inquiring minds from around the world want to know. View on www.alternet.org Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
On 01/14/2015 09:37 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up. You still haven't answered me what field of science you work in. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with
And remember I don't think Al Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11. Remember that Presidents take office and get a come to Jesus talk. I hear this even is happening now to Senators and Congressmen. We don't have a democracy anymore. We expected change with Obama and didn't get it. Same ol', same ol'. On 01/14/2015 12:58 PM, lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife] wrote: Gore was quite paranoid about Al Qaeda. Had he received a daily briefing about Osama bin Laden determined to attack the United States, his order of response would have easily ben an order of magnitude greater than Bush's. Remember: he headed an investigation of terrorism while Vice-President that made many recommendations that were ignored by Congress until after 9/11, and was laughed at by Bush administration officials during his transitional briefing when he warned them that Al Qaeda would be the biggest headache they faced. ALL of the major players in the Bush Administration had been selected because they had the attitude that government-sponsored violence and terrorism was the only real threat. Worrying about privately funded terrorism, and acts by small groups and organizations who were unaffiliated with any national government were virtually mocked by all of them in public, at one time or another. They were still fighting the US vs USSR cold war by policy and attitude, when they took office. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : YES BUT would have Gore done anything different than Bush? Would there have still been a 9/11? Remember Presidents are just a late night TV car salesmen and it's about the people behind them that counts. On 01/14/2015 11:33 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... mailto:mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Started reading the article but when your argument is based on a false premise, well the whole thing starts to fall apart and why bother reading the rest. Please, the Supreme Court did not install W. The Supreme Court told Florida that they could not change the election laws in the middle of an election to get a different outcome. The election laws were followed to the letter. There were three recounts and Bush won each one. Obviously, the democrats wanted as many recounts as it would take to get just one with a Gore majority and then that settles it. With the shenanigans going on,Dimpled chads being interpreted and Democratic precinct leaders with voting machines in the trunks of their cars, sooner or later the votes would have been manufactured to get the desired out come, another stolen election.. *From:* TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:00 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with */And a really good answer to it, from an ex-pat living in Norway:/* */ /* */Is the U.S. Crazy? http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy/* Is the U.S. Crazy? http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy Inquiring minds from around the world want to know. View on www.alternet.org http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
You make a good point about how the TM movement does its thing, but even so, Practice of Yogic Flying and the other TM-Sidhis DO seem to have measurable physiological on the individual in the same direction as TM, and there's evidence that long-term practice of these techniques even changes the physiological effects of TM-practice itself, so if you believe that TM is goo, then TM + TM-SIdhis is (or often is) better, for a large number of practitioners. That's assuming that one strikes a good balance of activity outside of Programme of course. personally, I think every TM Sidha should learn to juggle and do that every day for at least 15-30 minutes after program, morning and evening (assuming that their physical situation allows such practice, of course). There's no simple practice that engages the senses and muscles in quite as demanding a way, without causing physical stress, as juggling even three balls. And of course, once you master that, you can add more balls, or just close your eyes and try it with fewer -consistently tossing and catching even one ball with eyes closed is quite demanding for most people. Of course, professional-level juggling beanbags (about $7-$10 each) are better for practice than balls, because the all-important juggling technique of The Drop can be practiced many times as often if you don't have to chase what you just dropped all over creation. Juggling Beanbags from Dubé Juggling http://www.dube.com/beanbag/juggling-beanbags.php http://www.dube.com/beanbag/juggling-beanbags.php Juggling Beanbags from Dubé Juggling http://www.dube.com/beanbag/juggling-beanbags.php Squosh juggling beanbags, 4-panel 8-panel, from Dube Juggling View on www.dube.com http://www.dube.com/beanbag/juggling-beanbags.php Preview by Yahoo L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : It occurs to me that although there is often talk on this site about the limits of science and its methods to ascertain the full reality of life, there is rarely a discussion of the limits and issues concerning the subjective approach to knowledge coupled with interpretations of ancient scriptures by the same people who are so critical of science limits. While the methods of science get a pretty thorough working over as deficient in certainty, the subjective approach gets a wide pass on scrutiny of its inherent issues and problems. And while science is its worst critic for all the ways that it can be lead astray, (the whole method is a series of stopgap measures for people's tendency to F things up) the subjective approach applies quite a bit of effort to deflect a similar critique of its issues. (The Guru Gita is basically a scripture devoted to scaring people off questioning the master's word. (If God is angry with you the Guru can save you, if the guru is angry with you, no one can save you!) The biggest human cognitive gap I see is that we have a tendency to be very certain of things that turn out to not be true. And perversely, we gage the likelihood of something being true by our enthusiasm for the idea as well as how long we have held it. It creates a blind spot that you could drive a Vedic truck though. The certainty that people hold the notion that their experience in meditation is an experience of a trans-personal reality has so little evidence. Not just scientific evidence, but even good reasons other than it feels that way or the scriptures tell me so. The test of the trans-personal nature of what we experienced in meditation was the sidhis. This was a pretty good test IMO and if it had succeeded it would have gone a long way in shifting the Maharishi's claims from speculation of a religious nature to something society would need to take seriously. The movement acts as if this proof system that they choose was successful because they have misdirected attention from things we could easily verify (he flew or he didn't) to a statistical morass of highly complex social systems that no laymen can follow. There are many sidhis aside from flying that would be testable. But none of them have panned out. The movement still hangs its epistemological coat on the hanger of anecdotal experiences of finding a parking space when it was needed. If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science, would it look so promising as a method to really know about reality for someone who actually cares to distinguish fact from fancy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with
Gore was quite paranoid about Al Qaeda. Had he received a daily briefing about Osama bin Laden determined to attack the United States, his order of response would have easily ben an order of magnitude greater than Bush's. Remember: he headed an investigation of terrorism while Vice-President that made many recommendations that were ignored by Congress until after 9/11, and was laughed at by Bush administration officials during his transitional briefing when he warned them that Al Qaeda would be the biggest headache they faced. ALL of the major players in the Bush Administration had been selected because they had the attitude that government-sponsored violence and terrorism was the only real threat. Worrying about privately funded terrorism, and acts by small groups and organizations who were unaffiliated with any national government were virtually mocked by all of them in public, at one time or another. They were still fighting the US vs USSR cold war by policy and attitude, when they took office. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : YES BUT would have Gore done anything different than Bush? Would there have still been a 9/11? Remember Presidents are just a late night TV car salesmen and it's about the people behind them that counts. On 01/14/2015 11:33 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... mailto:mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Started reading the article but when your argument is based on a false premise, well the whole thing starts to fall apart and why bother reading the rest. Please, the Supreme Court did not install W. The Supreme Court told Florida that they could not change the election laws in the middle of an election to get a different outcome. The election laws were followed to the letter. There were three recounts and Bush won each one. Obviously, the democrats wanted as many recounts as it would take to get just one with a Gore majority and then that settles it. With the shenanigans going on,Dimpled chads being interpreted and Democratic precinct leaders with voting machines in the trunks of their cars, sooner or later the votes would have been manufactured to get the desired out come, another stolen election.. From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:00 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with And a really good answer to it, from an ex-pat living in Norway: Is the U.S. Crazy? http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy Is the U.S. Crazy? Inquiring minds from around the world want to know. View on www.alternet.org Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with
Started reading the article but when your argument is based on a false premise,
well the whole thing starts to fall apart and why bother reading the rest.
Please, the Supreme Court did not install W. The Supreme Court told Florida
that they could not change the election laws in the middle of an election to
get a different outcome. The election laws were followed to the letter. There
were three recounts and Bush won each one. Obviously, the democrats wanted as
many recounts as it would take to get just one with a Gore majority and then
that settles it. With the shenanigans going on,Dimpled chads being interpreted
and Democratic precinct leaders with voting machines in the trunks of their
cars, sooner or later the votes would have been manufactured to get the desired
out come, another stolen election..
From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:00 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with
And a really good answer to it, from an ex-pat living in Norway:
Is the U.S. Crazy?
| |
| | | | | | | |
| Is the U.S. Crazy?Inquiring minds from around the world want to know. |
| |
| View on www.alternet.org | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
#yiv6092692707 #yiv6092692707 -- #yiv6092692707ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv6092692707
#yiv6092692707ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv6092692707
#yiv6092692707ygrp-mkp #yiv6092692707hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv6092692707 #yiv6092692707ygrp-mkp #yiv6092692707ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv6092692707 #yiv6092692707ygrp-mkp .yiv6092692707ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv6092692707 #yiv6092692707ygrp-mkp .yiv6092692707ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv6092692707 #yiv6092692707ygrp-mkp .yiv6092692707ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6092692707 #yiv6092692707ygrp-sponsor
#yiv6092692707ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv6092692707
#yiv6092692707ygrp-sponsor #yiv6092692707ygrp-lc #yiv6092692707hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv6092692707
#yiv6092692707ygrp-sponsor #yiv6092692707ygrp-lc .yiv6092692707ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv6092692707 #yiv6092692707actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv6092692707
#yiv6092692707activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv6092692707
#yiv6092692707activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv6092692707
#yiv6092692707activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv6092692707 #yiv6092692707activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6092692707 #yiv6092692707activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv6092692707 #yiv6092692707activity span
.yiv6092692707underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6092692707
.yiv6092692707attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv6092692707 .yiv6092692707attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv6092692707 .yiv6092692707attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv6092692707 .yiv6092692707attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv6092692707 .yiv6092692707attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv6092692707 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv6092692707 .yiv6092692707bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv6092692707
.yiv6092692707bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6092692707 dd.yiv6092692707last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv6092692707 dd.yiv6092692707last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv6092692707
dd.yiv6092692707last p span.yiv6092692707yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv6092692707 div.yiv6092692707attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv6092692707 div.yiv6092692707attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv6092692707 div.yiv6092692707file-title a, #yiv6092692707
div.yiv6092692707file-title a:active, #yiv6092692707
div.yiv6092692707file-title a:hover, #yiv6092692707 div.yiv6092692707file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6092692707 div.yiv6092692707photo-title a,
#yiv6092692707 div.yiv6092692707photo-title a:active, #yiv6092692707
div.yiv6092692707photo-title a:hover, #yiv6092692707
div.yiv6092692707photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6092692707
div#yiv6092692707ygrp-mlmsg #yiv6092692707ygrp-msg p a
span.yiv6092692707yshortcuts
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv6092692707
.yiv6092692707green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv6092692707 .yiv6092692707MsoNormal
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv6092692707 o {font-size:0;}#yiv6092692707
#yiv6092692707photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv6092692707
#yiv6092692707photos div div {border:1px solid
#66;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv6092692707
#yiv6092692707photos div label
[FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
The subjective introspective method(s) also do not seem, in themselves, to foster the development of critical thinking about its own issues, and when these methods become institutionalised it usually seems the exact opposite happens, at every turn critical thinking is opposed and suppressed. A word search of the Bible in English translation reveals the word 'intelligence' only appears in relation to military intelligence, information related to a military campaign. Intelligence as the ability to learn, apply skills, and as a measure of intellectual capacity is nowhere to be found. In the TMO of course the word intelligence is praised, unless you turn its guns on finding flaws in the movement's philosophy and behaviour; then one becomes subject to not an intellectual rebuttal, but an emotional attack against one's supposed 'negativity'. In regard to other points in the posts below, I would also agree that consciousness is now once again a hot topic among philosophers and scientists. The dialogue has changed now that new tools for investigating the brain are at hand, and certain things about human intelligence that once seemed unique are now known to be shared by other animals besides us, and with computers. Machines can be aware of their environment and move within their environment on that basis. Why then would that somehow be different than what we do even though machines are vastly simpler than us? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : It occurs to me that although there is often talk on this site about the limits of science and its methods to ascertain the full reality of life, there is rarely a discussion of the limits and issues concerning the subjective approach to knowledge coupled with interpretations of ancient scriptures by the same people who are so critical of science limits. While the methods of science get a pretty thorough working over as deficient in certainty, the subjective approach gets a wide pass on scrutiny of its inherent issues and problems. And while science is its worst critic for all the ways that it can be lead astray, (the whole method is a series of stopgap measures for people's tendency to F things up) the subjective approach applies quite a bit of effort to deflect a similar critique of its issues. (The Guru Gita is basically a scripture devoted to scaring people off questioning the master's word. (If God is angry with you the Guru can save you, if the guru is angry with you, no one can save you!) The biggest human cognitive gap I see is that we have a tendency to be very certain of things that turn out to not be true. And perversely, we gage the likelihood of something being true by our enthusiasm for the idea as well as how long we have held it. It creates a blind spot that you could drive a Vedic truck though. The certainty that people hold the notion that their experience in meditation is an experience of a trans-personal reality has so little evidence. Not just scientific evidence, but even good reasons other than it feels that way or the scriptures tell me so. The test of the trans-personal nature of what we experienced in meditation was the sidhis. This was a pretty good test IMO and if it had succeeded it would have gone a long way in shifting the Maharishi's claims from speculation of a religious nature to something society would need to take seriously. The movement acts as if this proof system that they choose was successful because they have misdirected attention from things we could easily verify (he flew or he didn't) to a statistical morass of highly complex social systems that no laymen can follow. There are many sidhis aside from flying that would be testable. But none of them have panned out. The movement still hangs its epistemological coat on the hanger of anecdotal experiences of finding a parking space when it was needed. If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science, would it look so promising as a method to really know about reality for
Re: [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with
YES BUT would have Gore done anything different than Bush? Would there have still been a 9/11? Remember Presidents are just a late night TV car salesmen and it's about the people behind them that counts. On 01/14/2015 11:33 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Started reading the article but when your argument is based on a false premise, well the whole thing starts to fall apart and why bother reading the rest. Please, the Supreme Court did not install W. The Supreme Court told Florida that they could not change the election laws in the middle of an election to get a different outcome. The election laws were followed to the letter. There were three recounts and Bush won each one. Obviously, the democrats wanted as many recounts as it would take to get just one with a Gore majority and then that settles it. With the shenanigans going on,Dimpled chads being interpreted and Democratic precinct leaders with voting machines in the trunks of their cars, sooner or later the votes would have been manufactured to get the desired out come, another stolen election.. *From:* TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:00 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with */And a really good answer to it, from an ex-pat living in Norway:/* */ /* */Is the U.S. Crazy? http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy/* image http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy Is the U.S. Crazy? http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy Inquiring minds from around the world want to know. View on www.alternet.org http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 01/14/2015 09:37 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up. You still haven't answered me what field of science you work in. ;-) Are you doubting the ingenuity of the human mind? I have every confidence that this problem will be solved, the brain is made of the usual stuff after all. Sure it's going to take a truly amazing idea to crack the brain's secrets but all problems are solvable, to claim otherwise is to fence off knowledge in the way that held us back for all those centuries before the enlightenment. Back then we thought complexity must have a complex designer, we now know that isn't the case. Consciousness cannot be beyond understanding. I think it'll be fascinating watching the sacred cows fall one by one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re The only difference is I can use the vacuum to suck up dust, and the other Being just sits there doing nothing, useless. : As someone once put it in a similar context At least tables and chairs have the gumption to introduce themselves to us but where am I supposed to find these Platonic forms? Re But it [your vacuum cleaner] also has another property: being, it has existence.: According to Kant existence is *not* a property. Modern mathematicians and logicians agree and so use existential and universal quantifiers precisely in order to avoid using existence as a property. So they say things like There exists something answering to the description x and For all x, x has such-and-such a property. Why do Kant and moderns go in for such convoluted expressions? Because if you make existence a property you leave yourself open to the ontological proof that God exists! Thus: God has necessary existence (by definition). [Unlike vacuum cleaners which only have accidental existence.] So God *must* exist in the same way that the angles of a triangle must sum to two right angles. I do not understand how a vacuum cleaner would have an accidental existence, considering what it takes to bring one into existence. This seems to be an unsupported assumption taken as an axiom. Also defining something as having necessary existence does not prove that that existence is necessary. For example eye liner makeup could be defined as having necessary existence, even though it clearly does not have this. It is possible to define 'things' that do not exist, giving them a virtual reality, that is, a pretend reality, such as unicorns, which seem to have a different sort of reality than a vacuum cleaner. I think Bertrand Russell's 'the present King of France' falls into this category. What jr_esq is saying is that only consciousness has true being. Vacuum cleaners are simply modifications in awareness and have no independent reality. The idea that there is some aspect of reality called 'consciousness which has true being', is just an idea, a thought in the mind, which is a modification of the mind. If, in fact such an idea refers to a true existence, it cannot be known without, (1) the experience of it, and (2) a thought about it, so its existence, to be known and appreciated, requires a modification of the mind and is therefore not independent, its existence cannot be established without dependence. A dualistic frame of mind cannot resolve the issue. A non-dual frame of mind would result in: 'vacuum cleaner' = absolute Being This however probably seems weird or insane to someone who divides the world apart from an otherworldly idea of being. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : This was not quite what I was getting at, but I will give it another shot. In my office on the floor here is a vacuum cleaner. It sucks up dust, etc. But it also has another property: being, it has existence. It has being and it sucks dust and collects it in a bag. Now this seemingly other being you are talking about with the capital 'B', Being. That would seem, by your reckoning, to be something else, some other kind of being. But what could the difference be? The main property of existence is that it is. So if 'Being' exists, and the 'vacuum cleaner' exists, they both have exactly the same essential property. The only difference is I can use the vacuum to suck up dust, and the other Being just sits there doing nothing, useless. So are these two existences, these two beings, really any different in their essential nature, except for utility? We are now talking vacuum cleaners, not Aristotle, Plato, not Aquinas, these three by all historical accounts did not know about vacuum cleaners. I can also stand outside, or inside, and look at what at certain times I call clouds, sky, earth, but in this case not have a single thought as to what they are. What I see has being, because it exists. And what I call 'I' too exists. So why do I have to do this transcending stuff to be or to experience being? And if I have a thought, the thought has a kind of existence too, and all the other things I have mentioned remain being as well while I am having the thought. And not one bit of it is metaphysical, and yet it is all being, all the same kind of being. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, Without looking up the specific points made by Aristotle, Plato, and Aquinas, I would say the absolute is the same as Being, which is the prime mover in metaphysical analysis. But this point of view, although logical and intellectual, may not satisfy most people. I prefer to take Maharishi's explanation for Being which can be experienced by your own self or being. You too are existing since you have consciousness.As such, you are just a tiny drop in
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
I was hoping that a friend who has for years been watching FFL and is a tenured psych professor would finally begin posting here. He's well aware of the research into consciousness and some of the things that beginning to come to light out of what is really happy chemically and electronically with our brains. Some of this research is due to concerns of wireless technology on our minds. I know they've linked up the calcium in our brains being effected. And maybe to the chagrin of some of the astrology naysayers the effects some of the radio waves that the planets emit. Tantra seems to work because we are like radio transmitters/receivers. We seem to have the ability to transmit waves that can have an effect even at a long distance. On 01/14/2015 12:00 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: The subjective introspective method(s) also do not seem, in themselves, to foster the development of critical thinking about its own issues, and when these methods become institutionalised it usually seems the exact opposite happens, at every turn critical thinking is opposed and suppressed. A word search of the Bible in English translation reveals the word 'intelligence' only appears in relation to military intelligence, information related to a military campaign. Intelligence as the ability to learn, apply skills, and as a measure of intellectual capacity is nowhere to be found. In the TMO of course the word intelligence is praised, unless you turn its guns on finding flaws in the movement's philosophy and behaviour; then one becomes subject to not an intellectual rebuttal, but an emotional attack against one's supposed 'negativity'. In regard to other points in the posts below, I would also agree that consciousness is now once again a hot topic among philosophers and scientists. The dialogue has changed now that new tools for investigating the brain are at hand, and certain things about human intelligence that once seemed unique are now known to be shared by other animals besides us, and with computers. Machines can be aware of their environment and move within their environment on that basis. Why then would that somehow be different than what we do even though machines are vastly simpler than us? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : It occurs to me that although there is often talk on this site about the limits of science and its methods to ascertain the full reality of life, there is rarely a discussion of the limits and issues concerning the subjective approach to knowledge coupled with interpretations of ancient scriptures by the same people who are so critical of science limits. While the methods of science get a pretty thorough working over as deficient in certainty, the subjective approach gets a wide pass on scrutiny of its inherent issues and problems. And while science is its worst critic for all the ways that it can be lead astray, (the whole method is a series of stopgap measures for people's tendency to F things up) the subjective approach applies quite a bit of effort to deflect a similar critique of its issues. (The Guru Gita is basically a scripture devoted to scaring people off questioning the master's word. (If God is angry with you the Guru can save you, if the guru is angry with you, no one can save you!) The biggest human cognitive gap I see is that we have a tendency to be very certain of things that turn out to not be true. And perversely, we gage the likelihood of something being true by our enthusiasm for the idea as well as how long we have held it. It creates a blind spot that you could drive a Vedic truck though. The certainty that people hold the notion that their experience in meditation is an experience of a trans-personal reality has so little evidence. Not just scientific evidence, but even good reasons other than it feels that way or the scriptures tell me so. The test of the trans-personal nature of what we experienced in meditation was the sidhis. This was a pretty good test IMO
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : I was hoping that a friend who has for years been watching FFL and is a tenured psych professor would finally begin posting here. He's well aware of the research into consciousness and some of the things that beginning to come to light out of what is really happy chemically and electronically with our brains. Some of this research is due to concerns of wireless technology on our minds. I know they've linked up the calcium in our brains being effected. And maybe to the chagrin of some of the astrology naysayers the effects some of the radio waves that the planets emit. If astrology could prove that it worked then we wouldn't need the radio waves to justify it as it would have been one of those mysteries we were aware of but couldn't explain. Instead it seems like an ancient idea that failed scrutiny but is still searching around for evidence so it's adherents can say it has a science-y underpinning. Why would radio waves emitted by planets care what time we were born? How much weaker would they be when, say, Jupiter is at one end of it's orbit and we are at the other, do you take this into account? How is something as weak as an interplanetary radio wave going to affect us when there are so many stronger ones swamping us all the time and having no discernable effect? Tantra seems to work because we are like radio transmitters/receivers. We seem to have the ability to transmit waves that can have an effect even at a long distance. On 01/14/2015 12:00 PM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The subjective introspective method(s) also do not seem, in themselves, to foster the development of critical thinking about its own issues, and when these methods become institutionalised it usually seems the exact opposite happens, at every turn critical thinking is opposed and suppressed. A word search of the Bible in English translation reveals the word 'intelligence' only appears in relation to military intelligence, information related to a military campaign. Intelligence as the ability to learn, apply skills, and as a measure of intellectual capacity is nowhere to be found. In the TMO of course the word intelligence is praised, unless you turn its guns on finding flaws in the movement's philosophy and behaviour; then one becomes subject to not an intellectual rebuttal, but an emotional attack against one's supposed 'negativity'. In regard to other points in the posts below, I would also agree that consciousness is now once again a hot topic among philosophers and scientists. The dialogue has changed now that new tools for investigating the brain are at hand, and certain things about human intelligence that once seemed unique are now known to be shared by other animals besides us, and with computers. Machines can be aware of their environment and move within their environment on that basis. Why then would that somehow be different than what we do even though machines are vastly simpler than us? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote : It occurs to me that although there is often talk on this site about the limits of science and its methods to ascertain the full reality of life, there is rarely a discussion of the limits and issues concerning the subjective approach to knowledge coupled with interpretations of ancient scriptures by the same people who are so critical of science limits. While the methods of science get a pretty thorough working over as deficient in certainty, the subjective approach gets a wide pass on scrutiny of its inherent issues and problems. And while science is its worst critic for all the ways that it can be lead astray, (the whole method is a series of stopgap measures for people's tendency to F things
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
On 01/14/2015 01:41 PM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 01/14/2015 09:37 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up. You still haven't answered me what field of science you work in. ;-) Are you doubting the ingenuity of the human mind? I have every confidence that this problem will be solved, the brain is made of the usual stuff after all. Sure it's going to take a truly amazing idea to crack the brain's secrets but all problems are solvable, to claim otherwise is to fence off knowledge in the way that held us back for all those centuries before the enlightenment. Back then we thought complexity must have a complex designer, we now know that isn't the case. Consciousness cannot be beyond understanding. I think it'll be fascinating watching the sacred cows fall one by one. You still didn't answer a simple question. No offense but why are you evading it? Just say you are a fan.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 01/14/2015 01:48 PM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote : I was hoping that a friend who has for years been watching FFL and is a tenured psych professor would finally begin posting here. He's well aware of the research into consciousness and some of the things that beginning to come to light out of what is really happy chemically and electronically with our brains. Some of this research is due to concerns of wireless technology on our minds. I know they've linked up the calcium in our brains being effected. And maybe to the chagrin of some of the astrology naysayers the effects some of the radio waves that the planets emit. If astrology could prove that it worked then we wouldn't need the radio waves to justify it as it would have been one of those mysteries we were aware of but couldn't explain. Instead it seems like an ancient idea that failed scrutiny but is still searching around for evidence so it's adherents can say it has a science-y underpinning. Why would radio waves emitted by planets care what time we were born? How much weaker would they be when, say, Jupiter is at one end of it's orbit and we are at the other, do you take this into account? How is something as weak as an interplanetary radio wave going to affect us when there are so many stronger ones swamping us all the time and having no discernable effect? Don't know much about how radio emissions work do you? Oh, I get by. I used to be interested in radio and learned about the different wavelengths. So you know that they decrease in power by the square of the distance making them as useless as gravity as a hopeful explanation for planetary effects? Not that there are any that anyone has conclusively demonstrated of course ;-) There has been research into what frequencies the planets emit. Did you know that Jupiter particularly emits some strong radio bursts at times? They also figure Saturn does too but the rings may dampen it. Jupiter is a very powerful emitter for sure - more than the other planets combined - but doesn't the fact Saturn's get damped undermine the idea that they might figure in astrology? After all, if Jup's get through and Sat's don't then why do they both figure in birth charts? It's like a planetary weather. The planets of course don't care what time you were born, you do. But charts are done using the time of birth so if the planets are affecting you in some way in the periods before and after they therefore must still be affecting me due to my birth time because if they didn't you wouldn't be able to do predictions for me because that's the time you use, so it must be important. No? You certainly would if your mum told you that you were born during a severe thunderstorm or a beautiful summer day. Sun and moon effect our weather through patterns of low and high pressure. Uhuh, more or less than planets would you say?
Re: [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with
I remember seeing part of that video, which I believe was very conveniently found by American forces in some house in Afghanistan. Yeah, right! Al-Qaeda just happened to leave it behind. How fortunate for us! I think the entire tape was a fake, the bin Laden on the tape was a fake. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : bin Laden bragged on video about how his predictions about what would happen when the planes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 turned out to be the most accurate. Claiming that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11 is kinda strange. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : And remember I don't think Al Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11. Remember that Presidents take office and get a come to Jesus talk. I hear this even is happening now to Senators and Congressmen. We don't have a democracy anymore. We expected change with Obama and didn't get it. Same ol', same ol'. On 01/14/2015 12:58 PM, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Gore was quite paranoid about Al Qaeda. Had he received a daily briefing about Osama bin Laden determined to attack the United States, his order of response would have easily ben an order of magnitude greater than Bush's. Remember: he headed an investigation of terrorism while Vice-President that made many recommendations that were ignored by Congress until after 9/11, and was laughed at by Bush administration officials during his transitional briefing when he warned them that Al Qaeda would be the biggest headache they faced. ALL of the major players in the Bush Administration had been selected because they had the attitude that government-sponsored violence and terrorism was the only real threat. Worrying about privately funded terrorism, and acts by small groups and organizations who were unaffiliated with any national government were virtually mocked by all of them in public, at one time or another. They were still fighting the US vs USSR cold war by policy and attitude, when they took office. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote : YES BUT would have Gore done anything different than Bush? Would there have still been a 9/11? Remember Presidents are just a late night TV car salesmen and it's about the people behind them that counts. On 01/14/2015 11:33 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... mailto:mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Started reading the article but when your argument is based on a false premise, well the whole thing starts to fall apart and why bother reading the rest. Please, the Supreme Court did not install W. The Supreme Court told Florida that they could not change the election laws in the middle of an election to get a different outcome. The election laws were followed to the letter. There were three recounts and Bush won each one. Obviously, the democrats wanted as many recounts as it would take to get just one with a Gore majority and then that settles it. With the shenanigans going on,Dimpled chads being interpreted and Democratic precinct leaders with voting machines in the trunks of their cars, sooner or later the votes would have been manufactured to get the desired out come, another stolen election.. From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:00 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with And a really good answer to it, from an ex-pat living in Norway: Is the U.S. Crazy? Is the U.S. Crazy? Inquiring minds from around the world want to know. View on www.alternet.org Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with
You believe the video? Al-Qaeda didn't claim responsibility immediately. I liked to joke that they didn't until the money was wired (and that might not be a joke). May I suggest you read up on just the regular history of the Twin Towers. They were a boondoggle and recommended to be torn down in the 1980s. As time went by the cost of doing so was more than they were worth. Plus the disruption of a planned demolition would have been disruptive to the business district. A terrorist attack was a good cover. On 01/14/2015 01:17 PM, lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife] wrote: bin Laden bragged on video about how his predictions about what would happen when the planes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 turned out to be the most accurate. Claiming that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11 is kinda strange. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : And remember I don't think Al Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11. Remember that Presidents take office and get a come to Jesus talk. I hear this even is happening now to Senators and Congressmen. We don't have a democracy anymore. We expected change with Obama and didn't get it. Same ol', same ol'. On 01/14/2015 12:58 PM, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Gore was quite paranoid about Al Qaeda. Had he received a daily briefing about Osama bin Laden determined to attack the United States, his order of response would have easily ben an order of magnitude greater than Bush's. Remember: he headed an investigation of terrorism while Vice-President that made many recommendations that were ignored by Congress until after 9/11, and was laughed at by Bush administration officials during his transitional briefing when he warned them that Al Qaeda would be the biggest headache they faced. ALL of the major players in the Bush Administration had been selected because they had the attitude that government-sponsored violence and terrorism was the only real threat. Worrying about privately funded terrorism, and acts by small groups and organizations who were unaffiliated with any national government were virtually mocked by all of them in public, at one time or another. They were still fighting the US vs USSR cold war by policy and attitude, when they took office. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote : YES BUT would have Gore done anything different than Bush? Would there have still been a 9/11? Remember Presidents are just a late night TV car salesmen and it's about the people behind them that counts. On 01/14/2015 11:33 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... mailto:mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Started reading the article but when your argument is based on a false premise, well the whole thing starts to fall apart and why bother reading the rest. Please, the Supreme Court did not install W. The Supreme Court told Florida that they could not change the election laws in the middle of an election to get a different outcome. The election laws were followed to the letter. There were three recounts and Bush won each one. Obviously, the democrats wanted as many recounts as it would take to get just one with a Gore majority and then that settles it. With the shenanigans going on,Dimpled chads being interpreted and Democratic precinct leaders with voting machines in the trunks of their cars, sooner or later the votes would have been manufactured to get the desired out come, another stolen election.. *From:* TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:00 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with */And a really good answer to it, from an ex-pat living in Norway:/* */ /* */Is the U.S. Crazy? http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy/* Is the U.S. Crazy? http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy Inquiring minds from around the world want to know. View on www.alternet.org http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe
Re: I do not understand how a vacuum cleaner would have an accidental existence, considering what it takes to bring one into existence. This seems to be an unsupported assumption taken as an axiom.: By accidental they don't always imply a chance event. They mean contingent, ie *not* necessary but dependent on something else. Vacuum cleaners had to be invented by someone. Re Also defining something as having necessary existence does not prove that that existence is necessary. For example eye liner makeup could be defined as having necessary existence.: Eye-liner could indeed by *defined* as having necessary existence but no one would fall for it as it clearly doesn't. It's trickier with GOD as it does strike one as odd that God should just *happen* to exist. Surely any God that measures up to what the religious have thought of as the Perfect Being couldn't depend for His existing on a lucky break or on something outside Him? I agree it's a sneaky argument. It is amusing though that modern logic was developed in order to defuse the ontological argument so it clearly scared the shit out of Bertrand Russell co. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re The only difference is I can use the vacuum to suck up dust, and the other Being just sits there doing nothing, useless. : As someone once put it in a similar context At least tables and chairs have the gumption to introduce themselves to us but where am I supposed to find these Platonic forms? Re But it [your vacuum cleaner] also has another property: being, it has existence.: According to Kant existence is *not* a property. Modern mathematicians and logicians agree and so use existential and universal quantifiers precisely in order to avoid using existence as a property. So they say things like There exists something answering to the description x and For all x, x has such-and-such a property. Why do Kant and moderns go in for such convoluted expressions? Because if you make existence a property you leave yourself open to the ontological proof that God exists! Thus: God has necessary existence (by definition). [Unlike vacuum cleaners which only have accidental existence.] So God *must* exist in the same way that the angles of a triangle must sum to two right angles. I do not understand how a vacuum cleaner would have an accidental existence, considering what it takes to bring one into existence. This seems to be an unsupported assumption taken as an axiom. Also defining something as having necessary existence does not prove that that existence is necessary. For example eye liner makeup could be defined as having necessary existence, even though it clearly does not have this. It is possible to define 'things' that do not exist, giving them a virtual reality, that is, a pretend reality, such as unicorns, which seem to have a different sort of reality than a vacuum cleaner. I think Bertrand Russell's 'the present King of France' falls into this category. What jr_esq is saying is that only consciousness has true being. Vacuum cleaners are simply modifications in awareness and have no independent reality. The idea that there is some aspect of reality called 'consciousness which has true being', is just an idea, a thought in the mind, which is a modification of the mind. If, in fact such an idea refers to a true existence, it cannot be known without, (1) the experience of it, and (2) a thought about it, so its existence, to be known and appreciated, requires a modification of the mind and is therefore not independent, its existence cannot be established without dependence. A dualistic frame of mind cannot resolve the issue. A non-dual frame of mind would result in: 'vacuum cleaner' = absolute Being This however probably seems weird or insane to someone who divides the world apart from an otherworldly idea of being. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : This was not quite what I was getting at, but I will give it another shot. In my office on the floor here is a vacuum cleaner. It sucks up dust, etc. But it also has another property: being, it has existence. It has being and it sucks dust and collects it in a bag. Now this seemingly other being you are talking about with the capital 'B', Being. That would seem, by your reckoning, to be something else, some other kind of being. But what could the difference be? The main property of existence is that it is. So if 'Being' exists, and the 'vacuum cleaner' exists, they both have exactly the same essential property. The only difference is I can use the vacuum to suck up dust, and the other Being just sits there doing nothing, useless. So are these two existences, these two beings, really any different in their essential nature, except for utility? We are now talking vacuum
[FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
Re That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up: Your faith in science is touching. There is indeed correlation between neuronal activity/brain states and subjective experience. But from correlation to all wrapped up is a big leap. For example: I believe your hope at a final explanation to be doomed to failure. You believe your hope to be justified. But can the different arrangement of atoms in our respective brains actually have beliefs? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : It occurs to me that although there is often talk on this site about the limits of science and its methods to ascertain the full reality of life, there is rarely a discussion of the limits and issues concerning the subjective approach to knowledge coupled with interpretations of ancient scriptures by the same people who are so critical of science limits. While the methods of science get a pretty thorough working over as deficient in certainty, the subjective approach gets a wide pass on scrutiny of its inherent issues and problems. And while science is its worst critic for all the ways that it can be lead astray, (the whole method is a series of stopgap measures for people's tendency to F things up) the subjective approach applies quite a bit of effort to deflect a similar critique of its issues. (The Guru Gita is basically a scripture devoted to scaring people off questioning the master's word. (If God is angry with you the Guru can save you, if the guru is angry with you, no one can save you!) The biggest human cognitive gap I see is that we have a tendency to be very certain of things that turn out to not be true. And perversely, we gage the likelihood of something being true by our enthusiasm for the idea as well as how long we have held it. It creates a blind spot that you could drive a Vedic truck though. The certainty that people hold the notion that their experience in meditation is an experience of a trans-personal reality has so little evidence. Not just scientific evidence, but even good reasons other than it feels that way or the scriptures tell me so. The test of the trans-personal nature of what we experienced in meditation was the sidhis. This was a pretty good test IMO and if it had succeeded it would have gone a long way in shifting the Maharishi's claims from speculation of a religious nature to something society would need to take seriously. The movement acts as if this proof system that they choose was successful because they have misdirected attention from things we could easily verify (he flew or he didn't) to a statistical morass of highly complex social systems that no laymen can follow. There are many sidhis aside from flying that would be testable. But none of them have panned out. The movement still hangs its epistemological coat on the hanger of anecdotal experiences of finding a parking space when it was needed. If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science, would it look so promising as a method to really know about reality for someone who actually cares to distinguish fact from fancy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
Curtis, There are similarities between Maharishi's concept of the unified field to the teachings of Jesus about the kingdom of God. Both are fields that can be experienced personally by all human beings. These teachers taught that this Field is the source of being and of all creation. I don't believe the Hebrews and the Romans were familiar with this concept 2,000 years ago. To this day, the Jews are expecting the messiah to be a political leader who will establish a physical kingdom that would fulfill the destiny of the ancient kings of Israel, particularly David. The Romans thought Jesus was going to be a Jewish king who would upset the imperial power of Rome. So, they killed him along with common criminals to make a gruesome statement to the Jewish zealots who were revolting against the Roman occupation of Palestine. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : C: What is missing here is an explanation of why anyone should accept that the experiences people have in meditation are in fact an experience of a trans-personal reality. This gap if filled for Maharishi by the use of Mahvakyas and exposure to a specific teaching that convinces a person that this is in fact the reality. Aristotle's presumptive guess of an unmoved mover does not include any possibility for a human to experience it directly by his very definition of it as not having any continued connection to creation. This New Age approach to philosophy mushes the distinctions between philosophical schools of thought. Plato has plenty of time to express this idea that humans could experience an absolute level of life but he never did. He discusses cognitive benefits of knowing the essence of things in the forms but that is a relative level in Maharishi's system even if we choose to miss the point that he was teaching by analogy and it is highly dubious to take it as a literal fact. Aquinas would be horrified at this experience of an impersonal aspect of God. This is clear blasphemy and heresy in his Catholicism. Read his Summa and you will not feel that these connections are valid. He was teaching a completely different system of thought than Maharishi and was opposed to Maharishi's conclusions about reality. When I hung out with the Trappist monks who had learned TM I was exposed to how different they viewed meditation. For them the experience of being was nothing more than a quiet staging area for people to develop a personal relationship with God. It had no spiritual value on its own and was considered to be a grave threat to Christians who confused its purpose by getting into Maharishi's Hinduism. The connections between mystical Christianity and Maharishi's teaching are superficial and require ignoring what people actually believe who practice both forms. (This was not directed to you John but to my own TM self who thought I could make such connections back in the day.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, Without looking up the specific points made by Aristotle, Plato, and Aquinas, I would say the absolute is the same as Being, which is the prime mover in metaphysical analysis. But this point of view, although logical and intellectual, may not satisfy most people. I prefer to take Maharishi's explanation for Being which can be experienced by your own self or being. You too are existing since you have consciousness.As such, you are just a tiny drop in an ocean of Being. You can experience pure being by transcending thoughts. Pure being is experienced as bliss which is attained when the mind transcends thoughts. In TM, a mantra is used to transcend these thoughts. MMY stated that the bliss is gained at the juncture between the absolute and the relative in our mind. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, I using the word absolute as the the unified field, the consciousness beyond the human perceptions. John, you have been keeping this conversation going, especially with Curtis, who seems to be on a roll these past couple of days. This comment you made above got me thinking. Aside from quoting others on this point, if something is beyond human perception, how can you know it exists? If no perception, no information passes into the human nervous system and therefore no information about an 'absolute' could be directly processed by the nervous system, and therefore no direct knowledge of it could exist. This would lend credence to the idea that 'absolute' is imaginary; not real. If we assume others who told us this idea are like us, they too would have no direct knowledge of 'absolute'. And thus they too are simply proffering to us an imaginary concept. I have the opinion there is a way out of this dilemma, but I would like to see what your ideas are on this.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count Thu 15-Jan-15 00:15:10 UTC
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 01/10/15 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 01/17/15 00:00:00 281 messages as of (UTC) 01/15/15 00:07:11 40 TurquoiseBee turquoiseb 32 salyavin808 30 Bhairitu noozguru 27 s3raphita 25 steve.sundur 15 Michael Jackson mjackson74 14 curtisdeltablues 13 feste37 12 jr_esq 11 anartaxius 10 Mike Dixon mdixon.6569 8 emily.mae50 6 jamesalan735 5 hepa7 5 emptybill 5 aryavazhi 5 LEnglish5 4 j_alexander_stanley 3 srijau 3 inmadison 2 WLeed3 2 Dick Mays dickmays 2 'Rick Archer' rick 1 turquoiseb 1 eustace10679 Posters: 25 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: The limits of science
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. C: Science struggles to deal with certain levels of human complexity and there are swings back and forth from reductionism to a broader focus on complexity. What is shared is keeping the eye on the ball of what are the reasons supporting a belief. This can even be extended into the humanities. Science is one of our tools but paying attention to deciding what are good and bad reasons is common to human's best thinking. It can extend beyond the strictest protocols of the scientific method into areas more interesting to the philosophically minded. The first step is to map out what ARE the actual reasons someone believes something. This first step alone would clear up so much confusion. Maharishi was clear about his principles of his belief system. He laid out his pillars clearly. Reject them and you reject his system. But many people are not so clear about what assumptions their beliefs are built from. It takes some work to find it even in our own minds. This is another or our hug cognitive gaps. We think we are naturally good at knowing our own minds in this kind of detail. But we all suck at this. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : It occurs to me that although there is often talk on this site about the limits of science and its methods to ascertain the full reality of life, there is rarely a discussion of the limits and issues concerning the subjective approach to knowledge coupled with interpretations of ancient scriptures by the same people who are so critical of science limits. While the methods of science get a pretty thorough working over as deficient in certainty, the subjective approach gets a wide pass on scrutiny of its inherent issues and problems. And while science is its worst critic for all the ways that it can be lead astray, (the whole method is a series of stopgap measures for people's tendency to F things up) the subjective approach applies quite a bit of effort to deflect a similar critique of its issues. (The Guru Gita is basically a scripture devoted to scaring people off questioning the master's word. (If God is angry with you the Guru can save you, if the guru is angry with you, no one can save you!) The biggest human cognitive gap I see is that we have a tendency to be very certain of things that turn out to not be true. And perversely, we gage the likelihood of something being true by our enthusiasm for the idea as well as how long we have held it. It creates a blind spot that you could drive a Vedic truck though. The certainty that people hold the notion that their experience in meditation is an experience of a trans-personal reality has so little evidence. Not just scientific evidence, but even good reasons other than it feels that way or the scriptures tell me so. The test of the trans-personal nature of what we experienced in meditation was the sidhis. This was a pretty good test IMO and if it had succeeded it would have gone a long way in shifting the Maharishi's claims from speculation of a religious nature to something society would need to take seriously. The movement acts as if this proof system that they choose was successful because they have misdirected attention from things we could easily verify (he flew or he didn't) to a statistical morass of highly complex social systems that no laymen can follow. There are many sidhis aside from flying that would be testable. But none of them have panned out. The movement still hangs its epistemological coat on the hanger of anecdotal experiences of finding a parking space when it was needed. If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science, would it look so promising as a method to really know about reality for someone who actually cares to distinguish fact from fancy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 01/14/2015 01:41 PM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote : On 01/14/2015 09:37 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up. You still haven't answered me what field of science you work in. ;-) Are you doubting the ingenuity of the human mind? I have every confidence that this problem will be solved, the brain is made of the usual stuff after all. Sure it's going to take a truly amazing idea to crack the brain's secrets but all problems are solvable, to claim otherwise is to fence off knowledge in the way that held us back for all those centuries before the enlightenment. Back then we thought complexity must have a complex designer, we now know that isn't the case. Consciousness cannot be beyond understanding. I think it'll be fascinating watching the sacred cows fall one by one. You still didn't answer a simple question. No offense but why are you evading it? You've got my chart, you tell me ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe
Voltzmann Vacuum Cleaners? Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain A Boltzmann brain is a hypothesized self aware entity which arises due to random fluctuations out of a state of chaos. The idea is named for the physicist Ludwig... View on en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re: I do not understand how a vacuum cleaner would have an accidental existence, considering what it takes to bring one into existence. This seems to be an unsupported assumption taken as an axiom.: By accidental they don't always imply a chance event. They mean contingent, ie *not* necessary but dependent on something else. Vacuum cleaners had to be invented by someone. Re Also defining something as having necessary existence does not prove that that existence is necessary. For example eye liner makeup could be defined as having necessary existence.: Eye-liner could indeed by *defined* as having necessary existence but no one would fall for it as it clearly doesn't. It's trickier with GOD as it does strike one as odd that God should just *happen* to exist. Surely any God that measures up to what the religious have thought of as the Perfect Being couldn't depend for His existing on a lucky break or on something outside Him? I agree it's a sneaky argument. It is amusing though that modern logic was developed in order to defuse the ontological argument so it clearly scared the shit out of Bertrand Russell co. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re The only difference is I can use the vacuum to suck up dust, and the other Being just sits there doing nothing, useless. : As someone once put it in a similar context At least tables and chairs have the gumption to introduce themselves to us but where am I supposed to find these Platonic forms? Re But it [your vacuum cleaner] also has another property: being, it has existence.: According to Kant existence is *not* a property. Modern mathematicians and logicians agree and so use existential and universal quantifiers precisely in order to avoid using existence as a property. So they say things like There exists something answering to the description x and For all x, x has such-and-such a property. Why do Kant and moderns go in for such convoluted expressions? Because if you make existence a property you leave yourself open to the ontological proof that God exists! Thus: God has necessary existence (by definition). [Unlike vacuum cleaners which only have accidental existence.] So God *must* exist in the same way that the angles of a triangle must sum to two right angles. I do not understand how a vacuum cleaner would have an accidental existence, considering what it takes to bring one into existence. This seems to be an unsupported assumption taken as an axiom. Also defining something as having necessary existence does not prove that that existence is necessary. For example eye liner makeup could be defined as having necessary existence, even though it clearly does not have this. It is possible to define 'things' that do not exist, giving them a virtual reality, that is, a pretend reality, such as unicorns, which seem to have a different sort of reality than a vacuum cleaner. I think Bertrand Russell's 'the present King of France' falls into this category. What jr_esq is saying is that only consciousness has true being. Vacuum cleaners are simply modifications in awareness and have no independent reality. The idea that there is some aspect of reality called 'consciousness which has true being', is just an idea, a thought in the mind, which is a modification of the mind. If, in fact such an idea refers to a true existence, it cannot be known without, (1) the experience of it, and (2) a thought about it, so its existence, to be known and appreciated, requires a modification of the mind and is therefore not independent, its existence cannot be established without dependence. A dualistic frame of mind cannot resolve the issue. A non-dual frame of mind would result in: 'vacuum cleaner' = absolute Being This however probably seems weird or insane to someone who divides the world apart from an otherworldly idea of being. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : This was not quite what I was getting at, but I will give it another shot. In my office on the floor here is a vacuum cleaner. It sucks up dust, etc. But it also has another property: being, it has existence. It has being and it sucks dust and collects it in a bag.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Snowmen deemed anti-Islamic...
Oscar Mayer Wiener 1965 Commercial (one of America's Best Ads) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNddW2xmZp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNddW2xmZp8 Oscar Mayer Wiener 1965 Commercial (one of Americ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNddW2xmZp8 LSS ADVISORY : This ad gives you a last song syndrome so don't blame me for all of these. Most Americans had watched this ad for more than 40 year... View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNddW2xmZp8 Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : But really, seraph, who wants to write about sausages? I guess these will still be acceptable . . . ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : The madness is now unstoppable. Schoolbook authors have been told not to write about sausages or pigs for fear of causing offence. Guidance from leading educational publisher the Oxford University Press prohibits authors from including anything that could be perceived as pork-related in their books. [Yes - that's Oxford University Press!] Among the things prohibited in a text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork The OUP says its guidelines exist because it needs to make its educational material available to as many people as possible. A spokesman said: ‘Many of the educational materials we publish in the UK are sold in more than 150 countries, and as such they need to consider a range of cultural differences and sensitivities. 'Our editorial guidelines are intended to help ensure that the resources that we produce can be disseminated to the widest possible audience.’ Only a bloody revolution is going to wrest power from these half-wits. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I wouldn't worry about him too much, Seventh. It's just Turquoise, after all, ranting as usual, distorting what others have said, creating a straw man argument, and generally being an asshole. Nothing new here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Okay, so just so I have this straight. This is the same Barry, who just a few days ago was talking about the superior Dutch approach to integrating their Muslim population, I presume by some measure of tolerance, and, horror, respect of their religious traditions, which, as practiced by the great majority of Muslims does not include the slaughter of people not part of their belief system. And I presume that when Barry interacts with some member of the Muslim population when he is getting a piece of pizza, or a cell phone charger*, he will find it necessary to inform the proprietor, or worker as to what a pile of shit is the religion he subscribes to. Is this enough to be thankful to God, that Barry's sphere of influence is limited to just four or five people on this site? (-: * okay, this is light hearted stereotype. okay, just chill. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Yep, as I was saying a few days ago when Feste was urging us to respect Muslims' religious beliefs, how exactly are we supposed to feel anything but disgust for a group that really believes it's permissible to order a hit on anyone who creates an image of a human being? I know that the Guardian ran this story because they believe that this nut job cleric is out of the ordinary and a bit of a statistical outlier, but it is actually *standard Sunni Muslim dogma* that creating images of human beings is worshipping idols and thus punishable by death. Technically, the Charlie Hebdo murders would have been justified in these fanatics' eyes if they'd published completely reverential images of Mohammed. So I'm sorry, but anyone who dares to tell me that I have to respect these people's religion is as insane as they are. Anyone who believes this shit is either stuck in the Middle Ages or insane or both, and we have a responsibility to other sane human beings to point it out. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 11:08 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Snowmen deemed anti-Islamic... I think the silly season must have started early this year. But how sad to be art of a society where you feel you need to ask for permission to build a snowman... Saudi cleric issues fatwa on snowmen http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Saudi cleric issues fatwa on snowmen http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Religious leader forbids building of anti-Islamic idols that might resemble human beings, after winter storm in north of country
[FairfieldLife] Re: Snowmen deemed anti-Islamic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwtyJZH4fIU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwtyJZH4fIU
[FairfieldLife] Re: Snowmen deemed anti-Islamic...
The madness is now unstoppable. Schoolbook authors have been told not to write about sausages or pigs for fear of causing offence. Guidance from leading educational publisher the Oxford University Press prohibits authors from including anything that could be perceived as pork-related in their books. [Yes - that's Oxford University Press!] Among the things prohibited in a text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork The OUP says its guidelines exist because it needs to make its educational material available to as many people as possible. A spokesman said: ‘Many of the educational materials we publish in the UK are sold in more than 150 countries, and as such they need to consider a range of cultural differences and sensitivities. 'Our editorial guidelines are intended to help ensure that the resources that we produce can be disseminated to the widest possible audience.’ Only a bloody revolution is going to wrest power from these half-wits. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I wouldn't worry about him too much, Seventh. It's just Turquoise, after all, ranting as usual, distorting what others have said, creating a straw man argument, and generally being an asshole. Nothing new here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Okay, so just so I have this straight. This is the same Barry, who just a few days ago was talking about the superior Dutch approach to integrating their Muslim population, I presume by some measure of tolerance, and, horror, respect of their religious traditions, which, as practiced by the great majority of Muslims does not include the slaughter of people not part of their belief system. And I presume that when Barry interacts with some member of the Muslim population when he is getting a piece of pizza, or a cell phone charger*, he will find it necessary to inform the proprietor, or worker as to what a pile of shit is the religion he subscribes to. Is this enough to be thankful to God, that Barry's sphere of influence is limited to just four or five people on this site? (-: * okay, this is light hearted stereotype. okay, just chill. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Yep, as I was saying a few days ago when Feste was urging us to respect Muslims' religious beliefs, how exactly are we supposed to feel anything but disgust for a group that really believes it's permissible to order a hit on anyone who creates an image of a human being? I know that the Guardian ran this story because they believe that this nut job cleric is out of the ordinary and a bit of a statistical outlier, but it is actually *standard Sunni Muslim dogma* that creating images of human beings is worshipping idols and thus punishable by death. Technically, the Charlie Hebdo murders would have been justified in these fanatics' eyes if they'd published completely reverential images of Mohammed. So I'm sorry, but anyone who dares to tell me that I have to respect these people's religion is as insane as they are. Anyone who believes this shit is either stuck in the Middle Ages or insane or both, and we have a responsibility to other sane human beings to point it out. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 11:08 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Snowmen deemed anti-Islamic... I think the silly season must have started early this year. But how sad to be art of a society where you feel you need to ask for permission to build a snowman... Saudi cleric issues fatwa on snowmen http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Saudi cleric issues fatwa on snowmen http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Religious leader forbids building of anti-Islamic idols that might resemble human beings, after winter storm in north of country View on www.theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Snowmen deemed anti-Islamic...
But really, seraph, who wants to write about sausages? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : The madness is now unstoppable. Schoolbook authors have been told not to write about sausages or pigs for fear of causing offence. Guidance from leading educational publisher the Oxford University Press prohibits authors from including anything that could be perceived as pork-related in their books. [Yes - that's Oxford University Press!] Among the things prohibited in a text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork The OUP says its guidelines exist because it needs to make its educational material available to as many people as possible. A spokesman said: ‘Many of the educational materials we publish in the UK are sold in more than 150 countries, and as such they need to consider a range of cultural differences and sensitivities. 'Our editorial guidelines are intended to help ensure that the resources that we produce can be disseminated to the widest possible audience.’ Only a bloody revolution is going to wrest power from these half-wits. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I wouldn't worry about him too much, Seventh. It's just Turquoise, after all, ranting as usual, distorting what others have said, creating a straw man argument, and generally being an asshole. Nothing new here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Okay, so just so I have this straight. This is the same Barry, who just a few days ago was talking about the superior Dutch approach to integrating their Muslim population, I presume by some measure of tolerance, and, horror, respect of their religious traditions, which, as practiced by the great majority of Muslims does not include the slaughter of people not part of their belief system. And I presume that when Barry interacts with some member of the Muslim population when he is getting a piece of pizza, or a cell phone charger*, he will find it necessary to inform the proprietor, or worker as to what a pile of shit is the religion he subscribes to. Is this enough to be thankful to God, that Barry's sphere of influence is limited to just four or five people on this site? (-: * okay, this is light hearted stereotype. okay, just chill. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Yep, as I was saying a few days ago when Feste was urging us to respect Muslims' religious beliefs, how exactly are we supposed to feel anything but disgust for a group that really believes it's permissible to order a hit on anyone who creates an image of a human being? I know that the Guardian ran this story because they believe that this nut job cleric is out of the ordinary and a bit of a statistical outlier, but it is actually *standard Sunni Muslim dogma* that creating images of human beings is worshipping idols and thus punishable by death. Technically, the Charlie Hebdo murders would have been justified in these fanatics' eyes if they'd published completely reverential images of Mohammed. So I'm sorry, but anyone who dares to tell me that I have to respect these people's religion is as insane as they are. Anyone who believes this shit is either stuck in the Middle Ages or insane or both, and we have a responsibility to other sane human beings to point it out. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 11:08 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Snowmen deemed anti-Islamic... I think the silly season must have started early this year. But how sad to be art of a society where you feel you need to ask for permission to build a snowman... Saudi cleric issues fatwa on snowmen http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Saudi cleric issues fatwa on snowmen http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Religious leader forbids building of anti-Islamic idols that might resemble human beings, after winter storm in north of country View on www.theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
On 01/14/2015 01:48 PM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : I was hoping that a friend who has for years been watching FFL and is a tenured psych professor would finally begin posting here. He's well aware of the research into consciousness and some of the things that beginning to come to light out of what is really happy chemically and electronically with our brains. Some of this research is due to concerns of wireless technology on our minds. I know they've linked up the calcium in our brains being effected. And maybe to the chagrin of some of the astrology naysayers the effects some of the radio waves that the planets emit. If astrology could prove that it worked then we wouldn't need the radio waves to justify it as it would have been one of those mysteries we were aware of but couldn't explain. Instead it seems like an ancient idea that failed scrutiny but is still searching around for evidence so it's adherents can say it has a science-y underpinning. Why would radio waves emitted by planets care what time we were born? How much weaker would they be when, say, Jupiter is at one end of it's orbit and we are at the other, do you take this into account? How is something as weak as an interplanetary radio wave going to affect us when there are so many stronger ones swamping us all the time and having no discernable effect? Don't know much about how radio emissions work do you? I used to be interested in radio and learned about the different wavelengths. There has been research into what frequencies the planets emit. Did you know that Jupiter particularly emits some strong radio bursts at times? They also figure Saturn does too but the rings may dampen it. It's like a planetary weather. The planets of course don't care what time you were born, you do. You certainly would if your mum told you that you were born during a severe thunderstorm or a beautiful summer day. Sun and moon effect our weather through patterns of low and high pressure. Tantra seems to work because we are like radio transmitters/receivers. We seem to have the ability to transmit waves that can have an effect even at a long distance. On 01/14/2015 12:00 PM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The subjective introspective method(s) also do not seem, in themselves, to foster the development of critical thinking about its own issues, and when these methods become institutionalised it usually seems the exact opposite happens, at every turn critical thinking is opposed and suppressed. A word search of the Bible in English translation reveals the word 'intelligence' only appears in relation to military intelligence, information related to a military campaign. Intelligence as the ability to learn, apply skills, and as a measure of intellectual capacity is nowhere to be found. In the TMO of course the word intelligence is praised, unless you turn its guns on finding flaws in the movement's philosophy and behaviour; then one becomes subject to not an intellectual rebuttal, but an emotional attack against one's supposed 'negativity'. In regard to other points in the posts below, I would also agree that consciousness is now once again a hot topic among philosophers and scientists. The dialogue has changed now that new tools for investigating the brain are at hand, and certain things about human intelligence that once seemed unique are now known to be shared by other animals besides us, and with computers. Machines can be aware of their environment and move within their environment on that basis. Why then would that somehow be different than what we do even though machines are vastly simpler than us? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Snowmen deemed anti-Islamic...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : But really, seraph, who wants to write about sausages? I guess these will still be acceptable . . . ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : The madness is now unstoppable. Schoolbook authors have been told not to write about sausages or pigs for fear of causing offence. Guidance from leading educational publisher the Oxford University Press prohibits authors from including anything that could be perceived as pork-related in their books. [Yes - that's Oxford University Press!] Among the things prohibited in a text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork The OUP says its guidelines exist because it needs to make its educational material available to as many people as possible. A spokesman said: ‘Many of the educational materials we publish in the UK are sold in more than 150 countries, and as such they need to consider a range of cultural differences and sensitivities. 'Our editorial guidelines are intended to help ensure that the resources that we produce can be disseminated to the widest possible audience.’ Only a bloody revolution is going to wrest power from these half-wits. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I wouldn't worry about him too much, Seventh. It's just Turquoise, after all, ranting as usual, distorting what others have said, creating a straw man argument, and generally being an asshole. Nothing new here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Okay, so just so I have this straight. This is the same Barry, who just a few days ago was talking about the superior Dutch approach to integrating their Muslim population, I presume by some measure of tolerance, and, horror, respect of their religious traditions, which, as practiced by the great majority of Muslims does not include the slaughter of people not part of their belief system. And I presume that when Barry interacts with some member of the Muslim population when he is getting a piece of pizza, or a cell phone charger*, he will find it necessary to inform the proprietor, or worker as to what a pile of shit is the religion he subscribes to. Is this enough to be thankful to God, that Barry's sphere of influence is limited to just four or five people on this site? (-: * okay, this is light hearted stereotype. okay, just chill. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Yep, as I was saying a few days ago when Feste was urging us to respect Muslims' religious beliefs, how exactly are we supposed to feel anything but disgust for a group that really believes it's permissible to order a hit on anyone who creates an image of a human being? I know that the Guardian ran this story because they believe that this nut job cleric is out of the ordinary and a bit of a statistical outlier, but it is actually *standard Sunni Muslim dogma* that creating images of human beings is worshipping idols and thus punishable by death. Technically, the Charlie Hebdo murders would have been justified in these fanatics' eyes if they'd published completely reverential images of Mohammed. So I'm sorry, but anyone who dares to tell me that I have to respect these people's religion is as insane as they are. Anyone who believes this shit is either stuck in the Middle Ages or insane or both, and we have a responsibility to other sane human beings to point it out. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 11:08 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Snowmen deemed anti-Islamic... I think the silly season must have started early this year. But how sad to be art of a society where you feel you need to ask for permission to build a snowman... Saudi cleric issues fatwa on snowmen http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Saudi cleric issues fatwa on snowmen http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Religious leader forbids building of anti-Islamic idols that might resemble human beings, after winter storm in north of country View on www.theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Curtis, There are similarities between Maharishi's concept of the unified field to the teachings of Jesus about the kingdom of God. Both are fields that can be experienced personally by all human beings. These teachers taught that this Field is the source of being and of all creation. I don't believe the Hebrews and the Romans were familiar with this concept 2,000 years ago. To this day, the Jews are expecting the messiah to be a political leader who will establish a physical kingdom that would fulfill the destiny of the ancient kings of Israel, particularly David. The Romans thought Jesus was going to be a Jewish king who would upset the imperial power of Rome. So, they killed him along with common criminals to make a gruesome statement to the Jewish zealots who were revolting against the Roman occupation of Palestine. The Romans were quite familiar with Greek philosophy, and the lingua franca of the Mediterranean was Greek, so at least some of them were familiar with these concepts from the Greek philosophers. Parmenides, for example, taught the universe was one, timeless and there was no creation. The account of what the Romans thought of Jesus is only found in Christian scriptures, there is no independent contemporary confirmation from other sources as to his existence. We tend to extrapolate our current ideas of Judaism, Christianity and so forth back onto the first century, when beliefs and conditions were quite different. One only has to study the history of religion to discover that such beliefs are constantly in flux and change with each generation that is infected with them. The idea that the Christ was a physical man who walked the earth seems to have originated late in the first century. That would make the Gospels back-dated fiction, which did make use of some known historical characters, such as Pilate, who was an SOB and a real affliction for the Jews in Palestine. Rabbinic Judaism, what we see today, did not even exist then. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : C: What is missing here is an explanation of why anyone should accept that the experiences people have in meditation are in fact an experience of a trans-personal reality. This gap if filled for Maharishi by the use of Mahvakyas and exposure to a specific teaching that convinces a person that this is in fact the reality. Aristotle's presumptive guess of an unmoved mover does not include any possibility for a human to experience it directly by his very definition of it as not having any continued connection to creation. This New Age approach to philosophy mushes the distinctions between philosophical schools of thought. Plato has plenty of time to express this idea that humans could experience an absolute level of life but he never did. He discusses cognitive benefits of knowing the essence of things in the forms but that is a relative level in Maharishi's system even if we choose to miss the point that he was teaching by analogy and it is highly dubious to take it as a literal fact. Aquinas would be horrified at this experience of an impersonal aspect of God. This is clear blasphemy and heresy in his Catholicism. Read his Summa and you will not feel that these connections are valid. He was teaching a completely different system of thought than Maharishi and was opposed to Maharishi's conclusions about reality. When I hung out with the Trappist monks who had learned TM I was exposed to how different they viewed meditation. For them the experience of being was nothing more than a quiet staging area for people to develop a personal relationship with God. It had no spiritual value on its own and was considered to be a grave threat to Christians who confused its purpose by getting into Maharishi's Hinduism. The connections between mystical Christianity and Maharishi's teaching are superficial and require ignoring what people actually believe who practice both forms. (This was not directed to you John but to my own TM self who thought I could make such connections back in the day.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, Without looking up the specific points made by Aristotle, Plato, and Aquinas, I would say the absolute is the same as Being, which is the prime mover in metaphysical analysis. But this point of view, although logical and intellectual, may not satisfy most people. I prefer to take Maharishi's explanation for Being which can be experienced by your own self or being. You too are existing since you have consciousness.As such, you are just a tiny drop in an ocean of Being. You can experience pure being by transcending thoughts. Pure being is experienced as bliss which is attained when the mind transcends thoughts. In TM, a mantra is used to transcend these thoughts. MMY stated that the bliss is gained at the juncture
[FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
Plus, and don't quote me on this, there is a rumor going around that we are going to die ( and contrary to the wishful thinking committee), stay that way. You didn't hear this from me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. C: Science struggles to deal with certain levels of human complexity and there are swings back and forth from reductionism to a broader focus on complexity. What is shared is keeping the eye on the ball of what are the reasons supporting a belief. This can even be extended into the humanities. Science is one of our tools but paying attention to deciding what are good and bad reasons is common to human's best thinking. It can extend beyond the strictest protocols of the scientific method into areas more interesting to the philosophically minded. The first step is to map out what ARE the actual reasons someone believes something. This first step alone would clear up so much confusion. Maharishi was clear about his principles of his belief system. He laid out his pillars clearly. Reject them and you reject his system. But many people are not so clear about what assumptions their beliefs are built from. It takes some work to find it even in our own minds. This is another or our hug cognitive gaps. We think we are naturally good at knowing our own minds in this kind of detail. But we all suck at this. Our minds are strangely blind, a pastiche of biases of which we are typically unaware. Our senses filter the world in various ways so we don't see things that other animals and machines can detect. Bees for example can directly see ultraviolet radiation which we cannot, even though it can affect our nervous system in other ways (it can give us terrific headaches, and also burn our skin). Certain visual illusions show us we do not see what we think we are seeing, and research shows that our visual system interpolates and extrapolates much of what we think we are seeing. The intellect seems to make similar leaps over raw input, interpolating and extrapolating beyond what we know. Imagination is one of our best traits, but often we do not know we are imagining when we describe the world around us. Interviewing witnesses to an event is enough to show how much our account of some happening deviates from others of our species with regard to fact, especially if there are non human records of that event. I find as I age, certain cognitive functions change. My hearing is not so good, but also I suspect my cognitive processing of what does come through is also deteriorating, and from this one can reason that other mental functions such as logical reasoning, spacial awareness can be affected in similar ways, and the change is so gradual we do not notice that our precision is blurring. On the other hand, this increasing lack of precision seems to allow a more general integration of our lifetime experiences into a more coherent whole, because we are no longer quite so distracted by details, even aside from the claim that meditation can do this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
Xeno, The Romans back then were worshipping pagan gods. I tend to think that the people were accepting them as part of the state religion, but not because they believed in them. The educated Romans more likely knew about Greek philosophy but regarded it more as an intellectual pursuit rather than a subject that had immediate political application. You may differ and question the historicity of Jesus. But the fact remains that Christians swept the ancient world paradigm and changed the religion of the Roman Empire into Christianity. For me, I find it hard to believe that the people back then would accept a new religion based on a work of fiction. Also, many theologians and bible scholars have studied the gospels and analyzed them with a fine tooth comb. Their studies have shown that a person by the name of Jesus existed. Specifically, an ancient Jewish writer by the name of Josephus had corroborated the existence of Jesus who once lived in Palestine. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Curtis, There are similarities between Maharishi's concept of the unified field to the teachings of Jesus about the kingdom of God. Both are fields that can be experienced personally by all human beings. These teachers taught that this Field is the source of being and of all creation. I don't believe the Hebrews and the Romans were familiar with this concept 2,000 years ago. To this day, the Jews are expecting the messiah to be a political leader who will establish a physical kingdom that would fulfill the destiny of the ancient kings of Israel, particularly David. The Romans thought Jesus was going to be a Jewish king who would upset the imperial power of Rome. So, they killed him along with common criminals to make a gruesome statement to the Jewish zealots who were revolting against the Roman occupation of Palestine. The Romans were quite familiar with Greek philosophy, and the lingua franca of the Mediterranean was Greek, so at least some of them were familiar with these concepts from the Greek philosophers. Parmenides, for example, taught the universe was one, timeless and there was no creation. The account of what the Romans thought of Jesus is only found in Christian scriptures, there is no independent contemporary confirmation from other sources as to his existence. We tend to extrapolate our current ideas of Judaism, Christianity and so forth back onto the first century, when beliefs and conditions were quite different. One only has to study the history of religion to discover that such beliefs are constantly in flux and change with each generation that is infected with them. The idea that the Christ was a physical man who walked the earth seems to have originated late in the first century. That would make the Gospels back-dated fiction, which did make use of some known historical characters, such as Pilate, who was an SOB and a real affliction for the Jews in Palestine. Rabbinic Judaism, what we see today, did not even exist then. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : C: What is missing here is an explanation of why anyone should accept that the experiences people have in meditation are in fact an experience of a trans-personal reality. This gap if filled for Maharishi by the use of Mahvakyas and exposure to a specific teaching that convinces a person that this is in fact the reality. Aristotle's presumptive guess of an unmoved mover does not include any possibility for a human to experience it directly by his very definition of it as not having any continued connection to creation. This New Age approach to philosophy mushes the distinctions between philosophical schools of thought. Plato has plenty of time to express this idea that humans could experience an absolute level of life but he never did. He discusses cognitive benefits of knowing the essence of things in the forms but that is a relative level in Maharishi's system even if we choose to miss the point that he was teaching by analogy and it is highly dubious to take it as a literal fact. Aquinas would be horrified at this experience of an impersonal aspect of God. This is clear blasphemy and heresy in his Catholicism. Read his Summa and you will not feel that these connections are valid. He was teaching a completely different system of thought than Maharishi and was opposed to Maharishi's conclusions about reality. When I hung out with the Trappist monks who had learned TM I was exposed to how different they viewed meditation. For them the experience of being was nothing more than a quiet staging area for people to develop a personal relationship with God. It had no spiritual value on its own and was considered to be a grave threat to Christians who confused its purpose by getting into Maharishi's Hinduism. The connections between mystical
[FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
No, I did not hear it from you, quite familiar with it already. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Plus, and don't quote me on this, there is a rumor going around that we are going to die ( and contrary to the wishful thinking committee), stay that way. You didn't hear this from me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. C: Science struggles to deal with certain levels of human complexity and there are swings back and forth from reductionism to a broader focus on complexity. What is shared is keeping the eye on the ball of what are the reasons supporting a belief. This can even be extended into the humanities. Science is one of our tools but paying attention to deciding what are good and bad reasons is common to human's best thinking. It can extend beyond the strictest protocols of the scientific method into areas more interesting to the philosophically minded. The first step is to map out what ARE the actual reasons someone believes something. This first step alone would clear up so much confusion. Maharishi was clear about his principles of his belief system. He laid out his pillars clearly. Reject them and you reject his system. But many people are not so clear about what assumptions their beliefs are built from. It takes some work to find it even in our own minds. This is another or our hug cognitive gaps. We think we are naturally good at knowing our own minds in this kind of detail. But we all suck at this. Our minds are strangely blind, a pastiche of biases of which we are typically unaware. Our senses filter the world in various ways so we don't see things that other animals and machines can detect. Bees for example can directly see ultraviolet radiation which we cannot, even though it can affect our nervous system in other ways (it can give us terrific headaches, and also burn our skin). Certain visual illusions show us we do not see what we think we are seeing, and research shows that our visual system interpolates and extrapolates much of what we think we are seeing. The intellect seems to make similar leaps over raw input, interpolating and extrapolating beyond what we know. Imagination is one of our best traits, but often we do not know we are imagining when we describe the world around us. Interviewing witnesses to an event is enough to show how much our account of some happening deviates from others of our species with regard to fact, especially if there are non human records of that event. I find as I age, certain cognitive functions change. My hearing is not so good, but also I suspect my cognitive processing of what does come through is also deteriorating, and from this one can reason that other mental functions such as logical reasoning, spacial awareness can be affected in similar ways, and the change is so gradual we do not notice that our precision is blurring. On the other hand, this increasing lack of precision seems to allow a more general integration of our lifetime experiences into a more coherent whole, because we are no longer quite so distracted by details, even aside from the claim that meditation can do this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Curtis, There are similarities between Maharishi's concept of the unified field to the teachings of Jesus about the kingdom of God. Both are fields that can be experienced personally by all human beings. These teachers taught that this Field is the source of being and of all creation. C: I don't get that from my reading of the New Testament. The passage you refer to can also be translated as the kingdom of god is AMONG you, meaning himself. But all this is really a moot point when we consider how long it was till any of this was written down after his death. Do you really have ANY confidence in a quote from the Bible about the words Jesus used to talk about anything? I notice mistakes in the morning paper about stuff that happened that very day. J: I don't believe the Hebrews and the Romans were familiar with this concept 2,000 years ago. To this day, the Jews are expecting the messiah to be a political leader who will establish a physical kingdom that would fulfill the destiny of the ancient kings of Israel, particularly David. C: I think the Jews into the Sephiroth tree might beg to differ, but since Madonna is into that stuff... J: The Romans thought Jesus was going to be a Jewish king who would upset the imperial power of Rome. So, they killed him along with common criminals to make a gruesome statement to the Jewish zealots who were revolting against the Roman occupation of Palestine. C: I saw an interesting show about all the other guys who were kind of like him at that time, some with more and some with fewer followers. It was such a dice roll that Jesus's pacifist message turned out to be useful to Constantine. Some of the other guys were a bit more King of the Jews in a asskicking way. But there were plenty of Jesus type guys with a message just like there is today. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : C: What is missing here is an explanation of why anyone should accept that the experiences people have in meditation are in fact an experience of a trans-personal reality. This gap if filled for Maharishi by the use of Mahvakyas and exposure to a specific teaching that convinces a person that this is in fact the reality. Aristotle's presumptive guess of an unmoved mover does not include any possibility for a human to experience it directly by his very definition of it as not having any continued connection to creation. This New Age approach to philosophy mushes the distinctions between philosophical schools of thought. Plato has plenty of time to express this idea that humans could experience an absolute level of life but he never did. He discusses cognitive benefits of knowing the essence of things in the forms but that is a relative level in Maharishi's system even if we choose to miss the point that he was teaching by analogy and it is highly dubious to take it as a literal fact. Aquinas would be horrified at this experience of an impersonal aspect of God. This is clear blasphemy and heresy in his Catholicism. Read his Summa and you will not feel that these connections are valid. He was teaching a completely different system of thought than Maharishi and was opposed to Maharishi's conclusions about reality. When I hung out with the Trappist monks who had learned TM I was exposed to how different they viewed meditation. For them the experience of being was nothing more than a quiet staging area for people to develop a personal relationship with God. It had no spiritual value on its own and was considered to be a grave threat to Christians who confused its purpose by getting into Maharishi's Hinduism. The connections between mystical Christianity and Maharishi's teaching are superficial and require ignoring what people actually believe who practice both forms. (This was not directed to you John but to my own TM self who thought I could make such connections back in the day.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, Without looking up the specific points made by Aristotle, Plato, and Aquinas, I would say the absolute is the same as Being, which is the prime mover in metaphysical analysis. But this point of view, although logical and intellectual, may not satisfy most people. I prefer to take Maharishi's explanation for Being which can be experienced by your own self or being. You too are existing since you have consciousness.As such, you are just a tiny drop in an ocean of Being. You can experience pure being by transcending thoughts. Pure being is experienced as bliss which is attained when the mind transcends thoughts. In TM, a mantra is used to transcend these thoughts. MMY stated that the bliss is gained at the juncture between the absolute and the relative in our mind. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote :
Re: I do not understand how a vacuum cleaner would have an accidental
existence, considering what it takes to bring one into existence. This seems to
be an unsupported assumption taken as an axiom.:
By accidental they don't always imply a chance event.
They mean contingent, ie *not* necessary but dependent on something else.
Vacuum cleaners had to be invented by someone.
Re Also defining something as having necessary existence does not prove that
that existence is necessary. For example eye liner makeup could be defined as
having necessary existence.:
Eye-liner could indeed by *defined* as having necessary existence but no one
would fall for it as it clearly doesn't. It's trickier with GOD as it does
strike one as odd that God should just *happen* to exist. Surely any God that
measures up to what the religious have thought of as the Perfect Being couldn't
depend for His existing on a lucky break or on something outside Him?
How did God acquire the male sex ('Him')?. That slip alone reveals a certain
limitation and bias imposed by thought on the concept, and would imply there is
something outside of God that shaped Perfect Being a certain way, in a
dependent way. To my way of thinking there is no way there could be a verbal
answer to the question of being.
I agree it's a sneaky argument. It is amusing though that modern logic was
developed in order to defuse the ontological argument so it clearly scared the
shit out of Bertrand Russell co.
Russell and co., certainly did not care for metaphysics of the scholasticism
sort, but I doubt the arguments about being would have scared him a bit, and
Russell did seem to have a sense of metaphysics, though not of the religious
kind, but a priori knowledge, unlike some of his followers like Carnap and
Ayer, who sought to eliminate metaphysics entirely. The curious thing for me is
as a result of experiences resulting from meditation, my ability to conceive of
metaphysics simply vanished one day. Perhaps time will bring a different
understanding at some point, but the merging of what I used to call
transcendence with normal everyday experience makes it ludicrous to imagine
something beyond what is everyday life. This certainly seems contrary to what
people seem to expect from this process, but it would be a logical outcome of
unification. This does not mean new aspects of experience could not be
discovered, such as the kind of knowledge gained using a powerful telescope to
extend the senses and interpreting that using mathematics and logic, but these
things are not beyond the awareness but part and parcel of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up: Your faith in science is touching. There is indeed correlation between neuronal activity/brain states and subjective experience. But from correlation to all wrapped up is a big leap. It's not a faith in science it's confidence in human ingenuity. To say that it's impossible to understand is just to give up. Everything has an explanation and this one will be found as it involves the same stuff everything else is made of. Maybe, like a lot of people, you think that because consciousness can be experienced it must be a thing this is why people never seem to find it, it's a doing not a being. We've just got to work out how it works not point at it - because we can't. How bizarre would it be if the method by which we perceive and understand the world is the only thing we never understand? For example: I believe your hope at a final explanation to be doomed to failure. You believe your hope to be justified. But can the different arrangement of atoms in our respective brains actually have beliefs? Of course, why not? What else is there to be having these thoughts? And if there is something else, that will be found and become part of the explanation. Get some confidence, it only took a few years to go from the realisation that light moves in discrete packages (quanta) to Feynman's Quantum Electro-Dynamic theory of matter. Just a few years to go from thinking the universe consisted of a few thousand close stars to the realisation that there are billions of galaxies. Darwin killed god with one small book - though the corpse is still twitching for some reason. All it takes is an idea about how something works that no one has ever had before and off we go. But at the moment it's a mystery and an intriguing one... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : It occurs to me that although there is often talk on this site about the limits of science and its methods to ascertain the full reality of life, there is rarely a discussion of the limits and issues concerning the subjective approach to knowledge coupled with interpretations of ancient scriptures by the same people who are so critical of science limits. While the methods of science get a pretty thorough working over as deficient in certainty, the subjective approach gets a wide pass on scrutiny of its inherent issues and problems. And while science is its worst critic for all the ways that it can be lead astray, (the whole method is a series of stopgap measures for people's tendency to F things up) the subjective approach applies quite a bit of effort to deflect a similar critique of its issues. (The Guru Gita is basically a scripture devoted to scaring people off questioning the master's word. (If God is angry with you the Guru can save you, if the guru is angry with you, no one can save you!) The biggest human cognitive gap I see is that we have a tendency to be very certain of things that turn out to not be true. And perversely, we gage the likelihood of something being true by our enthusiasm for the idea as well as how long we have held it. It creates a blind spot that you could drive a Vedic truck though. The certainty that people hold the notion that their experience in meditation is an experience of a trans-personal reality has so little evidence. Not just scientific evidence, but even good reasons other than it feels that way or the scriptures tell me so. The test of the trans-personal nature of what we experienced in meditation was the sidhis. This was a pretty good test IMO and if it had succeeded it would have gone a long way in shifting the Maharishi's claims from speculation of a religious nature to something society would need to take
[FairfieldLife] Re: Snowmen deemed anti-Islamic...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : The madness is now unstoppable. Schoolbook authors have been told not to write about sausages or pigs for fear of causing offence. Guidance from leading educational publisher the Oxford University Press prohibits authors from including anything that could be perceived as pork-related in their books. [Yes - that's Oxford University Press!] Among the things prohibited in a text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork The OUP says its guidelines exist because it needs to make its educational material available to as many people as possible. A spokesman said: ‘Many of the educational materials we publish in the UK are sold in more than 150 countries, and as such they need to consider a range of cultural differences and sensitivities. 'Our editorial guidelines are intended to help ensure that the resources that we produce can be disseminated to the widest possible audience.’ Only a bloody revolution is going to wrest power from these half-wits. LOL I agree totally, it's like the human race is happy to die of over-sensitivity! Is anyone really going to take offence at the sight of a pig? If they do they don't deserve to have their feeling pandered to. Drag em back to reality that's what I say. One almost wishes there was a satirical magazine that had the guts to confront these maniacs directly! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I wouldn't worry about him too much, Seventh. It's just Turquoise, after all, ranting as usual, distorting what others have said, creating a straw man argument, and generally being an asshole. Nothing new here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Okay, so just so I have this straight. This is the same Barry, who just a few days ago was talking about the superior Dutch approach to integrating their Muslim population, I presume by some measure of tolerance, and, horror, respect of their religious traditions, which, as practiced by the great majority of Muslims does not include the slaughter of people not part of their belief system. And I presume that when Barry interacts with some member of the Muslim population when he is getting a piece of pizza, or a cell phone charger*, he will find it necessary to inform the proprietor, or worker as to what a pile of shit is the religion he subscribes to. Is this enough to be thankful to God, that Barry's sphere of influence is limited to just four or five people on this site? (-: * okay, this is light hearted stereotype. okay, just chill. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Yep, as I was saying a few days ago when Feste was urging us to respect Muslims' religious beliefs, how exactly are we supposed to feel anything but disgust for a group that really believes it's permissible to order a hit on anyone who creates an image of a human being? I know that the Guardian ran this story because they believe that this nut job cleric is out of the ordinary and a bit of a statistical outlier, but it is actually *standard Sunni Muslim dogma* that creating images of human beings is worshipping idols and thus punishable by death. Technically, the Charlie Hebdo murders would have been justified in these fanatics' eyes if they'd published completely reverential images of Mohammed. So I'm sorry, but anyone who dares to tell me that I have to respect these people's religion is as insane as they are. Anyone who believes this shit is either stuck in the Middle Ages or insane or both, and we have a responsibility to other sane human beings to point it out. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 11:08 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Snowmen deemed anti-Islamic... I think the silly season must have started early this year. But how sad to be art of a society where you feel you need to ask for permission to build a snowman... Saudi cleric issues fatwa on snowmen http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Saudi cleric issues fatwa on snowmen http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Religious leader forbids building of anti-Islamic idols that might resemble human beings, after winter storm in north of country View on www.theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. C: Science struggles to deal with certain levels of human complexity and there are swings back and forth from reductionism to a broader focus on complexity. What is shared is keeping the eye on the ball of what are the reasons supporting a belief. This can even be extended into the humanities. Science is one of our tools but paying attention to deciding what are good and bad reasons is common to human's best thinking. It can extend beyond the strictest protocols of the scientific method into areas more interesting to the philosophically minded. The first step is to map out what ARE the actual reasons someone believes something. This first step alone would clear up so much confusion. Maharishi was clear about his principles of his belief system. He laid out his pillars clearly. Reject them and you reject his system. But many people are not so clear about what assumptions their beliefs are built from. It takes some work to find it even in our own minds. This is another or our hug cognitive gaps. We think we are naturally good at knowing our own minds in this kind of detail. But we all suck at this. Our minds are strangely blind, a pastiche of biases of which we are typically unaware. Our senses filter the world in various ways so we don't see things that other animals and machines can detect. Bees for example can directly see ultraviolet radiation which we cannot, even though it can affect our nervous system in other ways (it can give us terrific headaches, and also burn our skin). Certain visual illusions show us we do not see what we think we are seeing, and research shows that our visual system interpolates and extrapolates much of what we think we are seeing. The intellect seems to make similar leaps over raw input, interpolating and extrapolating beyond what we know. Imagination is one of our best traits, but often we do not know we are imagining when we describe the world around us. Interviewing witnesses to an event is enough to show how much our account of some happening deviates from others of our species with regard to fact, especially if there are non human records of that event. I find as I age, certain cognitive functions change. My hearing is not so good, but also I suspect my cognitive processing of what does come through is also deteriorating, and from this one can reason that other mental functions such as logical reasoning, spacial awareness can be affected in similar ways, and the change is so gradual we do not notice that our precision is blurring. On the other hand, this increasing lack of precision seems to allow a more general integration of our lifetime experiences into a more coherent whole, because we are no longer quite so distracted by details, even aside from the claim that meditation can do this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
I think I mis-attributed this to Michael first time around. I would really enjoy any insights into Tony Nader that you would like to share. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jamesalan735@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : snip Here is a way to test his seriousness. Answer this question: Did Maharishi mean the connection between the unified field in physics to be an analogy, or was he equating the two? Try to make a case for your choice. If you give it a shot I will tell you what Larry Domash told me when I hit him with this question in my physics class with him and we can compare notes. If you do feel like giving it a shot, I will throw in some thoughts of Tony Nader on the 'fundamentals of TM' from when we worked together in Switzerland.
Re: [FairfieldLife] TV review: Babylon
OK, I spent the 99 cents to see the pilot episode on VUDU. It opens with the Marling character Liz giving a TED talk which is apparently how she, an American, winds up being the communications director at Scotland Yard. The pilot was excellent so when it finished I bought and watched episode 1. Thanks for the recommendation. Funny thing is that VUDU has the season on sale for $19.99. OK, they sell the pilot for 99 cents and you own that and there are 6 episodes so that would be $18. Someone at VUDU can't do math. But their HD is superior to Amazon's. On 01/12/2015 10:09 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] wrote: On 01/12/2015 09:44 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: *From:* Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com In the US you could simply pay $3 to own the pilot episode in HD. That means for the life of the company you bought it from it would be available to you on the Internet and playable on a TV with their app. But it was broadcast on Channel 4 so someone should have snagged it. Most US TV shows found posted in the pirate verse are off-the-air recordings via computer TV tuner. Those just record the digital MPEG-2 broadcast stream and then they run a commercial cutter and encode it to MP4. There's the torrents and then there are online TV where the shows are streamed from a server somewhere or someone's personal computer. There was a European court case, in Germany I think, that found watching on one of these sites was not illegal. Torrents are because you become implicated by passing on packets on your computer when downloading a show. So are you sure the pilot wasn't just miss labeled? */Pretty sure. It sez so in the IMDB and on the Wiki page. An episode S01E00 was broadcast back in February, obviously to determine whether Channel 4 thought there was a sufficient audience to warrant releasing the full series. Obviously, that worked, and now they're releasing episodes S01E01-S01E06 for broadcast. But it really IS curious that I can't find a torrent of the original pilot anywhere. I know it exists because episode S01E01 starts with a flashback to what had to be an entire episodes' worth of events, leading up to where Episode 1's story starts. The pilot told the whole story of how Brit's character got there in the first place. I'd really like to see it. /* Check Amazon over there as they have the pilot episode on sale in the US. Also so does VUDU but it seems to be labeled episode 1. They are charging more $19.99 for the full season which would be more than usual for just 6 episodes. Like I said other than curiosity would I even buy the episodes on Amazon since if I'm patient it will probably show up in April on Netflix after the repeat or on demand windows close. I've got plenty to watch until then. Netflix is becoming like a big TV station. I didn't realize that Z Nation was shot entirely in the Spokane arrea until I caught a glimpse of the credits. Since the surrounding area looks like the midwest (very flat) they could shoot there, go a few miles and have mountains and downtown Spokane has been substituted for Washington DC in some movies. Now I gotta go listen to see what Alex Jones has to say about the Golden Globes because Richard Linklater is one of his buddies and Alex has been in two of his movies. :-D */I actually fast-forwarded through the GG broadcast, just to see some of my fave actors and actresses partying down (they serve booze at the Golden Globes, unlike the Academy Awards). It seems to me that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association got a lot of things right this year. My only real hesitation is that I loved Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl, so I would like to have seen her win. But I haven't yet seen Still Alice, so it's very possible that Julianne Moore was better. I wasn't at all displeased to see The Affair win as best TV drama, and *loved* that they recognized Ruth Wilson in that film by giving her the Best Actress in a TV Drama award. She was as tremendous in this series as she was in Luther. When it comes to Best Actor in a TV Drama, I would have preferred James Spader for his work in The Blacklist, but let's face it, all five of the nominated actors were tremendous. I've downloaded but not yet seen Transparent, and clearly I must watch it, because it's obviously a real phenomenon. Of course I'm jazzed by them recognizing Maggie Gyllenhaal for The Honourable Woman. /* Gina Rodrigez won for best actress in a TV comedy. I've been pleasantly suprised with Jane the Virgin. It is a remake of Venezuelan TV comedy and very well done. Shade of Pushing Daisies having a narrator. I was just trying to find out what's happening with HBO's remake of Utopia and read that David Fincher plans direct every episode. This article has a great summary of the first season giving away the subtext (with spoiler
[FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with
And a really good answer to it, from an ex-pat living in Norway: Is the U.S. Crazy? | | | | | | | | | | | Is the U.S. Crazy?Inquiring minds from around the world want to know. | | | | View on www.alternet.org | Preview by Yahoo | | | | |
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
C: What is missing here is an explanation of why anyone should accept that the experiences people have in meditation are in fact an experience of a trans-personal reality. This gap if filled for Maharishi by the use of Mahvakyas and exposure to a specific teaching that convinces a person that this is in fact the reality. Aristotle's presumptive guess of an unmoved mover does not include any possibility for a human to experience it directly by his very definition of it as not having any continued connection to creation. This New Age approach to philosophy mushes the distinctions between philosophical schools of thought. Plato has plenty of time to express this idea that humans could experience an absolute level of life but he never did. He discusses cognitive benefits of knowing the essence of things in the forms but that is a relative level in Maharishi's system even if we choose to miss the point that he was teaching by analogy and it is highly dubious to take it as a literal fact. Aquinas would be horrified at this experience of an impersonal aspect of God. This is clear blasphemy and heresy in his Catholicism. Read his Summa and you will not feel that these connections are valid. He was teaching a completely different system of thought than Maharishi and was opposed to Maharishi's conclusions about reality. When I hung out with the Trappist monks who had learned TM I was exposed to how different they viewed meditation. For them the experience of being was nothing more than a quiet staging area for people to develop a personal relationship with God. It had no spiritual value on its own and was considered to be a grave threat to Christians who confused its purpose by getting into Maharishi's Hinduism. The connections between mystical Christianity and Maharishi's teaching are superficial and require ignoring what people actually believe who practice both forms. (This was not directed to you John but to my own TM self who thought I could make such connections back in the day.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, Without looking up the specific points made by Aristotle, Plato, and Aquinas, I would say the absolute is the same as Being, which is the prime mover in metaphysical analysis. But this point of view, although logical and intellectual, may not satisfy most people. I prefer to take Maharishi's explanation for Being which can be experienced by your own self or being. You too are existing since you have consciousness.As such, you are just a tiny drop in an ocean of Being. You can experience pure being by transcending thoughts. Pure being is experienced as bliss which is attained when the mind transcends thoughts. In TM, a mantra is used to transcend these thoughts. MMY stated that the bliss is gained at the juncture between the absolute and the relative in our mind. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, I using the word absolute as the the unified field, the consciousness beyond the human perceptions. John, you have been keeping this conversation going, especially with Curtis, who seems to be on a roll these past couple of days. This comment you made above got me thinking. Aside from quoting others on this point, if something is beyond human perception, how can you know it exists? If no perception, no information passes into the human nervous system and therefore no information about an 'absolute' could be directly processed by the nervous system, and therefore no direct knowledge of it could exist. This would lend credence to the idea that 'absolute' is imaginary; not real. If we assume others who told us this idea are like us, they too would have no direct knowledge of 'absolute'. And thus they too are simply proffering to us an imaginary concept. I have the opinion there is a way out of this dilemma, but I would like to see what your ideas are on this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe
Re The only difference is I can use the vacuum to suck up dust, and the other Being just sits there doing nothing, useless. : As someone once put it in a similar context At least tables and chairs have the gumption to introduce themselves to us but where am I supposed to find these Platonic forms? Re But it [your vacuum cleaner] also has another property: being, it has existence.: According to Kant existence is *not* a property. Modern mathematicians and logicians agree and so use existential and universal quantifiers precisely in order to avoid using existence as a property. So they say things like There exists something answering to the description x and For all x, x has such-and-such a property. Why do Kant and moderns go in for such convoluted expressions? Because if you make existence a property you leave yourself open to the ontological proof that God exists! Thus: God has necessary existence (by definition). [Unlike vacuum cleaners which only have accidental existence.] So God *must* exist in the same way that the angles of a triangle must sum to two right angles. What jr_esq is saying is that only consciousness has true being. Vacuum cleaners are simply modifications in awareness and have no independent reality. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : This was not quite what I was getting at, but I will give it another shot. In my office on the floor here is a vacuum cleaner. It sucks up dust, etc. But it also has another property: being, it has existence. It has being and it sucks dust and collects it in a bag. Now this seemingly other being you are talking about with the capital 'B', Being. That would seem, by your reckoning, to be something else, some other kind of being. But what could the difference be? The main property of existence is that it is. So if 'Being' exists, and the 'vacuum cleaner' exists, they both have exactly the same essential property. The only difference is I can use the vacuum to suck up dust, and the other Being just sits there doing nothing, useless. So are these two existences, these two beings, really any different in their essential nature, except for utility? We are now talking vacuum cleaners, not Aristotle, Plato, not Aquinas, these three by all historical accounts did not know about vacuum cleaners. I can also stand outside, or inside, and look at what at certain times I call clouds, sky, earth, but in this case not have a single thought as to what they are. What I see has being, because it exists. And what I call 'I' too exists. So why do I have to do this transcending stuff to be or to experience being? And if I have a thought, the thought has a kind of existence too, and all the other things I have mentioned remain being as well while I am having the thought. And not one bit of it is metaphysical, and yet it is all being, all the same kind of being. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, Without looking up the specific points made by Aristotle, Plato, and Aquinas, I would say the absolute is the same as Being, which is the prime mover in metaphysical analysis. But this point of view, although logical and intellectual, may not satisfy most people. I prefer to take Maharishi's explanation for Being which can be experienced by your own self or being. You too are existing since you have consciousness.As such, you are just a tiny drop in an ocean of Being. You can experience pure being by transcending thoughts. Pure being is experienced as bliss which is attained when the mind transcends thoughts. In TM, a mantra is used to transcend these thoughts. MMY stated that the bliss is gained at the juncture between the absolute and the relative in our mind. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, I using the word absolute as the the unified field, the consciousness beyond the human perceptions. John, you have been keeping this conversation going, especially with Curtis, who seems to be on a roll these past couple of days. This comment you made above got me thinking. Aside from quoting others on this point, if something is beyond human perception, how can you know it exists? If no perception, no information passes into the human nervous system and therefore no information about an 'absolute' could be directly processed by the nervous system, and therefore no direct knowledge of it could exist. This would lend credence to the idea that 'absolute' is imaginary; not real. If we assume others who told us this idea are like us, they too would have no direct knowledge of 'absolute'. And thus they too are simply proffering to us an imaginary concept. I have the opinion there is a way out of this dilemma, but I would like to see what your ideas are on this.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
Reminds me of buying the Satanic Verses back in the late 1980s. The small town bookstore even had it and no I didn't have to wait in line. But it was considered a controversial buy. :-D On 01/14/2015 02:46 AM, salyavin808 wrote: I wanted a copy but my local newsagent didn't have it. Lots of interesting articles in the rest of the press though. An Imam in the UK is taking it as an act of war, lots of French Muslims - mostly young ones - think the attack was perfectly justified. It doesn't look like the all is forgiven message is getting through ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : */The line this morning to buy a copy of Charlie Hebdo. /* https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/q85/p960x960/10623871_10152576151702826_267762956995127226_o.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
What sucks for the vacuum cleaner is that it was created from other stuff - and it's in a constant state of flux - meaning it's subject to modification, and in fact, is falling apart right before your eyes. Imagine sitting on the edge of a wild camp fire where flames and sparks are sporting and popping - certainly those sparks exist, but a case could be made that the existence of a spark is 'borrowed' from the fire, and the existence of the fire is 'borrowed' from the wood, and the existence of the wood 'borrowed' from the tree. Existentially, there is no difference between a galaxy, a vacuum cleaner, a spark or a neutrino - we may place too heavy an emphasis on life span - but in the case of every object, it's existence is borrowed. IOW, from time to time, existence can take the form of an object.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The question every American Ex-Pat has to deal with
It isn't just the US, the whole world is going mad. And FFL isn't immune the collective consciousness either. On 01/14/2015 08:00 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: */And a really good answer to it, from an ex-pat living in Norway:/* */ /* */Is the U.S. Crazy? http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy/* image http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy Is the U.S. Crazy? http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy Inquiring minds from around the world want to know. View on www.alternet.org http://www.alternet.org/world/us-crazy Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
From: inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 5:48 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species A few thoughts that may lead nowhere . . . At least some of the experiences we have, for example looking at the moon, are stored somehow in the brain. We know they are stored because we can recall them later. Also, if I first wish for a turkey sub but then prefer a veggie burrito, these processes are also stored in the brain and in principle can be verified. IOW, in principle, the contents of mind can be verified. I think you can see where I'm going with this. OK, so if transcendental c-ness is a possible experience, lets describe as 'being aware of being aware', then, how would this experience be stored, what would be the contents of the brain that would be retrieved in verifying the experience? 0101011101010100010001100011
[FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : It occurs to me that although there is often talk on this site about the limits of science and its methods to ascertain the full reality of life, there is rarely a discussion of the limits and issues concerning the subjective approach to knowledge coupled with interpretations of ancient scriptures by the same people who are so critical of science limits. While the methods of science get a pretty thorough working over as deficient in certainty, the subjective approach gets a wide pass on scrutiny of its inherent issues and problems. And while science is its worst critic for all the ways that it can be lead astray, (the whole method is a series of stopgap measures for people's tendency to F things up) the subjective approach applies quite a bit of effort to deflect a similar critique of its issues. (The Guru Gita is basically a scripture devoted to scaring people off questioning the master's word. (If God is angry with you the Guru can save you, if the guru is angry with you, no one can save you!) The biggest human cognitive gap I see is that we have a tendency to be very certain of things that turn out to not be true. And perversely, we gage the likelihood of something being true by our enthusiasm for the idea as well as how long we have held it. It creates a blind spot that you could drive a Vedic truck though. The certainty that people hold the notion that their experience in meditation is an experience of a trans-personal reality has so little evidence. Not just scientific evidence, but even good reasons other than it feels that way or the scriptures tell me so. The test of the trans-personal nature of what we experienced in meditation was the sidhis. This was a pretty good test IMO and if it had succeeded it would have gone a long way in shifting the Maharishi's claims from speculation of a religious nature to something society would need to take seriously. The movement acts as if this proof system that they choose was successful because they have misdirected attention from things we could easily verify (he flew or he didn't) to a statistical morass of highly complex social systems that no laymen can follow. There are many sidhis aside from flying that would be testable. But none of them have panned out. The movement still hangs its epistemological coat on the hanger of anecdotal experiences of finding a parking space when it was needed. If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science, would it look so promising as a method to really know about reality for someone who actually cares to distinguish fact from fancy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
01010011011001110010011100100001
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
A few thoughts that may lead nowhere . . . At least some of the experiences we have, for example looking at the moon, are stored somehow in the brain. We know they are stored because we can recall them later.Also, if I first wish for a turkey sub but then prefer a veggie burrito, these processes are also stored in the brain and in principle can be verified. IOW, in principle, the contents of mind can be verified. I think you can see where I'm going with this. OK, so if transcendental c-ness is a possible experience, lets describe as 'being aware of being aware', then, how would this experience be stored, what would be the contents of the brain that would be retrieved in verifying the experience?
[FairfieldLife] The limits of science
It occurs to me that although there is often talk on this site about the limits of science and its methods to ascertain the full reality of life, there is rarely a discussion of the limits and issues concerning the subjective approach to knowledge coupled with interpretations of ancient scriptures by the same people who are so critical of science limits. While the methods of science get a pretty thorough working over as deficient in certainty, the subjective approach gets a wide pass on scrutiny of its inherent issues and problems. And while science is its worst critic for all the ways that it can be lead astray, (the whole method is a series of stopgap measures for people's tendency to F things up) the subjective approach applies quite a bit of effort to deflect a similar critique of its issues. (The Guru Gita is basically a scripture devoted to scaring people off questioning the master's word. (If God is angry with you the Guru can save you, if the guru is angry with you, no one can save you!) The biggest human cognitive gap I see is that we have a tendency to be very certain of things that turn out to not be true. And perversely, we gage the likelihood of something being true by our enthusiasm for the idea as well as how long we have held it. It creates a blind spot that you could drive a Vedic truck though. The certainty that people hold the notion that their experience in meditation is an experience of a trans-personal reality has so little evidence. Not just scientific evidence, but even good reasons other than it feels that way or the scriptures tell me so. The test of the trans-personal nature of what we experienced in meditation was the sidhis. This was a pretty good test IMO and if it had succeeded it would have gone a long way in shifting the Maharishi's claims from speculation of a religious nature to something society would need to take seriously. The movement acts as if this proof system that they choose was successful because they have misdirected attention from things we could easily verify (he flew or he didn't) to a statistical morass of highly complex social systems that no laymen can follow. There are many sidhis aside from flying that would be testable. But none of them have panned out. The movement still hangs its epistemological coat on the hanger of anecdotal experiences of finding a parking space when it was needed. If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science, would it look so promising as a method to really know about reality for someone who actually cares to distinguish fact from fancy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
Re If transcendental c-ness is a possible experience, lets describe as 'being aware of being aware', then, how would this experience be stored?: It wouldn't be stored! According to MMY the experiences we have of transcending are really just the experiences we have at the edges as we slip into or out of pure consciousness. As pure consciousness has no content - as there is no division between an experiencer and an experience - there can be nothing to recall. Presumably if you spent the full 20 minutes in a pure state you'd simply recall that you sat down 20 minutes ago and shut your eyes and then opened them to see the minute hand of your clock had moved on by 60 degrees. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, inmadison@... wrote : A few thoughts that may lead nowhere . . . At least some of the experiences we have, for example looking at the moon, are stored somehow in the brain. We know they are stored because we can recall them later.Also, if I first wish for a turkey sub but then prefer a veggie burrito, these processes are also stored in the brain and in principle can be verified. IOW, in principle, the contents of mind can be verified. I think you can see where I'm going with this. OK, so if transcendental c-ness is a possible experience, lets describe as 'being aware of being aware', then, how would this experience be stored, what would be the contents of the brain that would be retrieved in verifying the experience?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: R. Crumb on Mohammed's ass
On 01/13/2015 11:40 PM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : From an interview with a reporter on this event, the guys who attacked may have never even read the Koran. They were just stupid fools who wanted to get their names in the history books and maybe get those virgins sooner. This is a problem that it is really up to the Islamic community to clean up since it is giving them a bad name. There are many Muslims who want to live in the 21st century, get along with their non-Muslim neighbors and friends and many who probably haven't been to a mosque in years. Perspective is everything. Boys will be boys. I heard reports that one of the UK Jihadis caught going to Syria had a copy of The Koran for Dummies so they could gen up before they got there. Even if these stories are true I think there's an implication that this makes them not real Muslims. I see the problem as being that these kids are brought up from birth to think in this way and they fall back on it as an absolute to protect, the only solid part of their lives and containing all the trigger emotions and phrases for them to get radical about. Surely if we had schools - or a parental attitude - whereby people were taught from birth to be open minded and consider religious POVS to be one among many rather than the only truth, we'd have a more balanced generation? Something to aim for. I grew up with a couple of kids whose father was the pastor for a local church and was something of a Mennonite. We all snickered because we knew that once their kids graduated from high school they would rebel. Which most of them did. Same with some of the kids of Adventists I knew. It's almost as if the parents of the terrorists were the ones that rebelled and then the kids rediscovered their roots.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The limits of science
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science . . . : I agree with your post but one point you miss is that science has itself tended to avoid tackling subjective experiences as it wants to stick with measurable, objective, shared data. So you get ideas like Behaviourism in psychology which never discuss introspective content. Or Dennett who denies we even have mental events. Science doesn't do justice to what it is actually like being a human being; whereas spirituality isn't self-critical enough. That's been historically true enough but it's all changed now. Consciousness is the hot topic these days, and not just with the mystical crowd luckily. It's only a matter of time until this intriguing little mystery is all wrapped up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : It occurs to me that although there is often talk on this site about the limits of science and its methods to ascertain the full reality of life, there is rarely a discussion of the limits and issues concerning the subjective approach to knowledge coupled with interpretations of ancient scriptures by the same people who are so critical of science limits. While the methods of science get a pretty thorough working over as deficient in certainty, the subjective approach gets a wide pass on scrutiny of its inherent issues and problems. And while science is its worst critic for all the ways that it can be lead astray, (the whole method is a series of stopgap measures for people's tendency to F things up) the subjective approach applies quite a bit of effort to deflect a similar critique of its issues. (The Guru Gita is basically a scripture devoted to scaring people off questioning the master's word. (If God is angry with you the Guru can save you, if the guru is angry with you, no one can save you!) The biggest human cognitive gap I see is that we have a tendency to be very certain of things that turn out to not be true. And perversely, we gage the likelihood of something being true by our enthusiasm for the idea as well as how long we have held it. It creates a blind spot that you could drive a Vedic truck though. The certainty that people hold the notion that their experience in meditation is an experience of a trans-personal reality has so little evidence. Not just scientific evidence, but even good reasons other than it feels that way or the scriptures tell me so. The test of the trans-personal nature of what we experienced in meditation was the sidhis. This was a pretty good test IMO and if it had succeeded it would have gone a long way in shifting the Maharishi's claims from speculation of a religious nature to something society would need to take seriously. The movement acts as if this proof system that they choose was successful because they have misdirected attention from things we could easily verify (he flew or he didn't) to a statistical morass of highly complex social systems that no laymen can follow. There are many sidhis aside from flying that would be testable. But none of them have panned out. The movement still hangs its epistemological coat on the hanger of anecdotal experiences of finding a parking space when it was needed. If the subjective method had half the scrutiny given to science, would it look so promising as a method to really know about reality for someone who actually cares to distinguish fact from fancy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
Dollar Tree had 5 packet boxes of espresso on sale for awhile for $1. After those went away people were selling them for $10 on eBay. On 01/14/2015 04:49 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : If you really have to have one, you can get a copy for a few hundred dollars on Ebay. Seriously. Go to Ebay and search for Charlie Hebdo. There's one for £530! Is that a gross prophet margin or what? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I wanted a copy but my local newsagent didn't have it. Lots of interesting articles in the rest of the press though. An Imam in the UK is taking it as an act of war, lots of French Muslims - mostly young ones - think the attack was perfectly justified. It doesn't look like the all is forgiven message is getting through ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : */The line this morning to buy a copy of Charlie Hebdo. /* https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/q85/p960x960/10623871_10152576151702826_267762956995127226_o.jpg
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: R. Crumb on Mohammed's ass
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : From an interview with a reporter onthis event, the guys who attacked may have never even read theKoran. They were just stupid fools who wanted to get their namesin the history books and maybe get those virgins sooner. This isa problem that it is really up to the Islamic community to cleanup since it is giving them a bad name. There are many Muslims whowant to live in the 21st century, get along with their non-Muslimneighbors and friends and many who probably haven't been to amosque in years. Perspective is everything. Boys will be boys. I heard reports that one of the UK Jihadis caught going to Syria had a copy of The Koran for Dummies so they could gen up before they got there. Based on what I've read of the original, the title The Koran for Dummies is redundant.
[FairfieldLife] From my best friend in Paris
The line this morning to buy a copy of Charlie Hebdo.
Re: [FairfieldLife] India Bans Widow Burning
From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] India Bans Widow Burning
WTF is this world coming to!
Tell me about it. The next heretical insult that the West perpetrates on India
(The Home Of All Knowledge) is that they're going to try to make it illegal to
roast marshmallows over the burning wife's corpse.
From: eustace10679 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 3:47 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] India Bans Widow Burning
BBC World Service - Witness
Available now : 10 minutes
In I988 India passed a law that made it a criminal offence to help anyone
perform Sati, the ancient Hindu custom of a woman being burned alive on the
funeral pyre of her dead husband. Witness has been speaking to Ranjana Kumari,
who helped to push through the change in legislation.
(Photo: drawing from 1850 of an Indian woman practising the tradition of Sati
in which she burns herself to death on her husband's funeral pyre. Credit:
Getty Images.)
India Bans Widow Burning, Witness - BBC World Service
||
|||| India Bans Widow Burning, Witness - BBC World
Service In I988 India passed a law that made it a criminal offence to help
anyone commit Sati||
||Preview by Yahoo|
||
#yiv4073375723 #yiv4073375723 -- #yiv4073375723ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv4073375723
#yiv4073375723ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv4073375723
#yiv4073375723ygrp-mkp #yiv4073375723hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv4073375723 #yiv4073375723ygrp-mkp #yiv4073375723ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv4073375723 #yiv4073375723ygrp-mkp .yiv4073375723ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv4073375723 #yiv4073375723ygrp-mkp .yiv4073375723ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv4073375723 #yiv4073375723ygrp-mkp .yiv4073375723ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv4073375723 #yiv4073375723ygrp-sponsor
#yiv4073375723ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv4073375723
#yiv4073375723ygrp-sponsor #yiv4073375723ygrp-lc #yiv4073375723hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv4073375723
#yiv4073375723ygrp-sponsor #yiv4073375723ygrp-lc .yiv4073375723ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv4073375723 #yiv4073375723actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv4073375723
#yiv4073375723activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv4073375723
#yiv4073375723activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv4073375723
#yiv4073375723activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv4073375723 #yiv4073375723activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv4073375723 #yiv4073375723activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv4073375723 #yiv4073375723activity span
.yiv4073375723underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4073375723
.yiv4073375723attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv4073375723 .yiv4073375723attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv4073375723 .yiv4073375723attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv4073375723 .yiv4073375723attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv4073375723 .yiv4073375723attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv4073375723 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv4073375723 .yiv4073375723bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv4073375723
.yiv4073375723bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv4073375723 dd.yiv4073375723last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv4073375723 dd.yiv4073375723last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv4073375723
dd.yiv4073375723last p span.yiv4073375723yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv4073375723 div.yiv4073375723attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv4073375723 div.yiv4073375723attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv4073375723 div.yiv4073375723file-title a, #yiv4073375723
div.yiv4073375723file-title a:active, #yiv4073375723
div.yiv4073375723file-title a:hover, #yiv4073375723 div.yiv4073375723file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv4073375723 div.yiv4073375723photo-title a,
#yiv4073375723 div.yiv4073375723photo-title a:active, #yiv4073375723
div.yiv4073375723photo-title a:hover, #yiv4073375723
div.yiv4073375723photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv4073375723
div#yiv4073375723ygrp-mlmsg #yiv4073375723ygrp-msg p a
span.yiv4073375723yshortcuts
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv4073375723
.yiv4073375723green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv4073375723 .yiv4073375723MsoNormal
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv4073375723 o {font-size:0;}#yiv4073375723
#yiv4073375723photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv4073375723
#yiv4073375723photos div div {border:1px solid
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote :
If you really have to have one, you can get a copy for a few hundred dollars on
Ebay. Seriously. Go to Ebay and search for Charlie Hebdo.
There's one for £530! Is that a gross prophet margin or what?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
I wanted a copy but my local newsagent didn't have it. Lots of interesting
articles in the rest of the press though. An Imam in the UK is taking it as an
act of war, lots of French Muslims - mostly young ones - think the attack was
perfectly justified. It doesn't look like the all is forgiven message is
getting through
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
The line this morning to buy a copy of Charlie Hebdo.
#yiv3522646392 #yiv3522646392 -- #yiv3522646392ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392ygrp-mkp #yiv3522646392hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv3522646392 #yiv3522646392ygrp-mkp #yiv3522646392ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv3522646392 #yiv3522646392ygrp-mkp .yiv3522646392ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv3522646392 #yiv3522646392ygrp-mkp .yiv3522646392ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv3522646392 #yiv3522646392ygrp-mkp .yiv3522646392ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv3522646392 #yiv3522646392ygrp-sponsor
#yiv3522646392ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392ygrp-sponsor #yiv3522646392ygrp-lc #yiv3522646392hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392ygrp-sponsor #yiv3522646392ygrp-lc .yiv3522646392ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv3522646392 #yiv3522646392actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv3522646392 #yiv3522646392activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv3522646392 #yiv3522646392activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv3522646392 #yiv3522646392activity span
.yiv3522646392underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3522646392
.yiv3522646392attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv3522646392 .yiv3522646392attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv3522646392 .yiv3522646392attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv3522646392 .yiv3522646392attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv3522646392 .yiv3522646392attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv3522646392 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv3522646392 .yiv3522646392bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv3522646392
.yiv3522646392bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv3522646392 dd.yiv3522646392last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv3522646392 dd.yiv3522646392last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv3522646392
dd.yiv3522646392last p span.yiv3522646392yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv3522646392 div.yiv3522646392attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv3522646392 div.yiv3522646392attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv3522646392 div.yiv3522646392file-title a, #yiv3522646392
div.yiv3522646392file-title a:active, #yiv3522646392
div.yiv3522646392file-title a:hover, #yiv3522646392 div.yiv3522646392file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv3522646392 div.yiv3522646392photo-title a,
#yiv3522646392 div.yiv3522646392photo-title a:active, #yiv3522646392
div.yiv3522646392photo-title a:hover, #yiv3522646392
div.yiv3522646392photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv3522646392
div#yiv3522646392ygrp-mlmsg #yiv3522646392ygrp-msg p a
span.yiv3522646392yshortcuts
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv3522646392
.yiv3522646392green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv3522646392 .yiv3522646392MsoNormal
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv3522646392 o {font-size:0;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392photos div div {border:1px solid
#66;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392photos div label
{color:#66;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392reco-category {font-size:77%;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392reco-desc {font-size:77%;}#yiv3522646392 .yiv3522646392replbq
{margin:4px;}#yiv3522646392 #yiv3522646392ygrp-actbar div a:first-child
{margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}#yiv3522646392 #yiv3522646392ygrp-mlmsg
{font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv3522646392
#yiv3522646392ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}#yiv3522646392
[FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
If all you want is to be able to read it, you can see the entire thing online: http://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/2sd9jm/scan_of_charlie_hebdo_coming/ http://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/2sd9jm/scan_of_charlie_hebdo_coming/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : If you really have to have one, you can get a copy for a few hundred dollars on Ebay. Seriously. Go to Ebay and search for Charlie Hebdo. There's one for £530! Is that a gross prophet margin or what? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I wanted a copy but my local newsagent didn't have it. Lots of interesting articles in the rest of the press though. An Imam in the UK is taking it as an act of war, lots of French Muslims - mostly young ones - think the attack was perfectly justified. It doesn't look like the all is forgiven message is getting through ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : The line this morning to buy a copy of Charlie Hebdo.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
Cool. Thanks, Alex. I'll have a real one to look at later tonight because my
friend actually stood in the line I posted a photo of earlier and scored a
copy.
But I like that this Redditer took the trouble to scan and post it specifically
to keep people from profiting from it on Ebay. I have the PDF from this link,
and it is clean and virus-free, according to McAfee.
From: j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 2:18 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
If all you want is to be able to read it, you can see the entire thing
online:
http://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/2sd9jm/scan_of_charlie_hebdo_coming/
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote :
If you really have to have one, you can get a copy for a few hundred dollars on
Ebay. Seriously. Go to Ebay and search for Charlie Hebdo.
There's one for £530! Is that a gross prophet margin or what?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
I wanted a copy but my local newsagent didn't have it. Lots of interesting
articles in the rest of the press though. An Imam in the UK is taking it as an
act of war, lots of French Muslims - mostly young ones - think the attack was
perfectly justified. It doesn't look like the all is forgiven message is
getting through
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
The line this morning to buy a copy of Charlie Hebdo.
#yiv9984059994 #yiv9984059994 -- #yiv9984059994ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv9984059994
#yiv9984059994ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv9984059994
#yiv9984059994ygrp-mkp #yiv9984059994hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv9984059994 #yiv9984059994ygrp-mkp #yiv9984059994ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv9984059994 #yiv9984059994ygrp-mkp .yiv9984059994ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv9984059994 #yiv9984059994ygrp-mkp .yiv9984059994ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv9984059994 #yiv9984059994ygrp-mkp .yiv9984059994ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv9984059994 #yiv9984059994ygrp-sponsor
#yiv9984059994ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv9984059994
#yiv9984059994ygrp-sponsor #yiv9984059994ygrp-lc #yiv9984059994hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv9984059994
#yiv9984059994ygrp-sponsor #yiv9984059994ygrp-lc .yiv9984059994ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv9984059994 #yiv9984059994actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv9984059994
#yiv9984059994activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv9984059994
#yiv9984059994activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv9984059994
#yiv9984059994activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv9984059994 #yiv9984059994activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv9984059994 #yiv9984059994activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv9984059994 #yiv9984059994activity span
.yiv9984059994underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9984059994
.yiv9984059994attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv9984059994 .yiv9984059994attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv9984059994 .yiv9984059994attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv9984059994 .yiv9984059994attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv9984059994 .yiv9984059994attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv9984059994 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv9984059994 .yiv9984059994bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv9984059994
.yiv9984059994bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv9984059994 dd.yiv9984059994last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv9984059994 dd.yiv9984059994last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv9984059994
dd.yiv9984059994last p span.yiv9984059994yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv9984059994 div.yiv9984059994attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv9984059994 div.yiv9984059994attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv9984059994 div.yiv9984059994file-title a, #yiv9984059994
div.yiv9984059994file-title a:active, #yiv9984059994
div.yiv9984059994file-title a:hover, #yiv9984059994 div.yiv9984059994file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv9984059994 div.yiv9984059994photo-title a,
#yiv9984059994 div.yiv9984059994photo-title a:active, #yiv9984059994
div.yiv9984059994photo-title a:hover, #yiv9984059994
div.yiv9984059994photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv9984059994
div#yiv9984059994ygrp-mlmsg #yiv9984059994ygrp-msg p a
span.yiv9984059994yshortcuts
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv9984059994
.yiv9984059994green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv9984059994 .yiv9984059994MsoNormal
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv9984059994 o
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
This was not quite what I was getting at, but I will give it another shot. In my office on the floor here is a vacuum cleaner. It sucks up dust, etc. But it also has another property: being, it has existence. It has being and it sucks dust and collects it in a bag. Now this seemingly other being you are talking about with the capital 'B', Being. That would seem, by your reckoning, to be something else, some other kind of being. But what could the difference be? The main property of existence is that it is. So if 'Being' exists, and the 'vacuum cleaner' exists, they both have exactly the same essential property. The only difference is I can use the vacuum to suck up dust, and the other Being just sits there doing nothing, useless. So are these two existences, these two beings, really any different in their essential nature, except for utility? We are now talking vacuum cleaners, not Aristotle, Plato, not Aquinas, these three by all historical accounts did not know about vacuum cleaners. I can also stand outside, or inside, and look at what at certain times I call clouds, sky, earth, but in this case not have a single thought as to what they are. What I see has being, because it exists. And what I call 'I' too exists. So why do I have to do this transcending stuff to be or to experience being? And if I have a thought, the thought has a kind of existence too, and all the other things I have mentioned remain being as well while I am having the thought. And not one bit of it is metaphysical, and yet it is all being, all the same kind of being. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, Without looking up the specific points made by Aristotle, Plato, and Aquinas, I would say the absolute is the same as Being, which is the prime mover in metaphysical analysis. But this point of view, although logical and intellectual, may not satisfy most people. I prefer to take Maharishi's explanation for Being which can be experienced by your own self or being. You too are existing since you have consciousness.As such, you are just a tiny drop in an ocean of Being. You can experience pure being by transcending thoughts. Pure being is experienced as bliss which is attained when the mind transcends thoughts. In TM, a mantra is used to transcend these thoughts. MMY stated that the bliss is gained at the juncture between the absolute and the relative in our mind. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, I using the word absolute as the the unified field, the consciousness beyond the human perceptions. John, you have been keeping this conversation going, especially with Curtis, who seems to be on a roll these past couple of days. This comment you made above got me thinking. Aside from quoting others on this point, if something is beyond human perception, how can you know it exists? If no perception, no information passes into the human nervous system and therefore no information about an 'absolute' could be directly processed by the nervous system, and therefore no direct knowledge of it could exist. This would lend credence to the idea that 'absolute' is imaginary; not real. If we assume others who told us this idea are like us, they too would have no direct knowledge of 'absolute'. And thus they too are simply proffering to us an imaginary concept. I have the opinion there is a way out of this dilemma, but I would like to see what your ideas are on this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
Great photo. It also shows the difference between America and France: In America you get people lining up for the latest Iphone or Ipad, in France for a satyrical magazine.
[FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
I wanted a copy but my local newsagent didn't have it. Lots of interesting articles in the rest of the press though. An Imam in the UK is taking it as an act of war, lots of French Muslims - mostly young ones - think the attack was perfectly justified. It doesn't look like the all is forgiven message is getting through ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : The line this morning to buy a copy of Charlie Hebdo.
[FairfieldLife] Re: R. Crumb on Mohammed's ass
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : One issue that has cropped up in recent days is where we've had many pundits criticizing newspapers for not re-printing the Mohammed cartoons to show solidarity with the murdered journalists of Charlie Hebdo. The offending editors are (correctly) being accused of cowardice. I've mixed feelings about this one. What I mean is: suppose some idiot were to publish an article claiming the Holocaust never happened. Then further suppose that a Jewish activist group murdered this idiot and announced that anyone who followed his example and dared to print such denials of Jewish suffering would be likewise assassinated. Now, I believe that people can express any opinion they like so I'd condemn the killing without reservation. But if I were a newspaper or magazine editor would I feel under an obligation to *myself* print the Holocaust-denying article? Surely not. I know the situations are not strictly comparable but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. Any thoughts? It's really the same situation because it's about self appointed death squads taking offence at something they see as fundamentally important, it doesn't really matter that one thing is something that is known to have happened and the other is something they've been brought up from birth to consider sacred. So it comes down to whether you - as a newspaper editor - feel there is news value in repeating it and whether the obvious shock and potential loss of readership is worth the hassle. Editors have to weigh it all up along with things like the fact we have a different satirical tradition in England. For instance, we've never beheaded our royal family en masse (yet) so this ability to mock authority so utterly isn't really in the English DNA, no matter how much we'll say we protect free speech it's illegal to use language or behaviour that may cause offence to another. I'd like to see a paper call the bluff of the thought police and publish the Hebdo cover today and see what happens, they could say Je suis Charlie as a defence and Cameron would have to pardon them. But then they'd be seen as doing something for no reason other than to be provocative and it would be out of character - even for Private Eye and Viz -without having that tradition of humour or religious sensibility in their papers. Part of me sees religion as a mental illness or social psychosis and the fear of seeing images of the prophet as a manifestation of deep anxiety, the best way to cure anxiety is to confront it head on but people generally like to be aware they have a problem and seek help themselves when they want it. Mass shock therapy may not be the best way to go. Maybe Private Eye should have more of a religious slant and we could start to gently chip away at the madness that way, how does that suit you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re But whether Charlie will approve of the sort of people that turned up for the defend free speech rally remains to be seen.: Yes. The midget Sarkozy is being mocked on social media after he pushed his way to the front row of the politicians' rally. These people have no shame. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : The cover of the latest edition of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been published in French media, and depicts the Prophet Muhammad. The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading I am Charlie, below the words all is forgiven. Brilliant. I can't see how anyone would fail to find it amusing. Open season. LOL I'm sure that Allah the merciful will approve.. But whether Charlie will approve of the sort of people that turned up for the defend free speech rally remains to be seen. In the front row you've got Vladimir Putin - who recently signed into law legislation forbidding transexual people from driving. Benyamin Netanyahu, Mohammad Abbas? Netanyahu was actually *officially* asked not to come by President Hollande. He ignored it and came anyway, and used his appearance to stir up fear among French Jews. What a putz. I noticed he was encouraging more immigration to Israel, there must be a few square miles of Palestinian land left that they haven't built on
Re: [FairfieldLife] From my best friend in Paris
OMG! There must be over thirty people in that line!
From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 12:35 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] From my best friend in Paris
The line this morning to buy a copy of Charlie Hebdo.
#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659 -- #yiv2684605659ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659ygrp-mkp #yiv2684605659hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659ygrp-mkp #yiv2684605659ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659ygrp-mkp .yiv2684605659ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659ygrp-mkp .yiv2684605659ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659ygrp-mkp .yiv2684605659ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659ygrp-sponsor
#yiv2684605659ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659ygrp-sponsor #yiv2684605659ygrp-lc #yiv2684605659hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659ygrp-sponsor #yiv2684605659ygrp-lc .yiv2684605659ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659activity span
.yiv2684605659underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2684605659
.yiv2684605659attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv2684605659 .yiv2684605659attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2684605659 .yiv2684605659attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv2684605659 .yiv2684605659attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv2684605659 .yiv2684605659attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2684605659 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv2684605659 .yiv2684605659bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv2684605659
.yiv2684605659bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2684605659 dd.yiv2684605659last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv2684605659 dd.yiv2684605659last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv2684605659
dd.yiv2684605659last p span.yiv2684605659yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv2684605659 div.yiv2684605659attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2684605659 div.yiv2684605659attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv2684605659 div.yiv2684605659file-title a, #yiv2684605659
div.yiv2684605659file-title a:active, #yiv2684605659
div.yiv2684605659file-title a:hover, #yiv2684605659 div.yiv2684605659file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2684605659 div.yiv2684605659photo-title a,
#yiv2684605659 div.yiv2684605659photo-title a:active, #yiv2684605659
div.yiv2684605659photo-title a:hover, #yiv2684605659
div.yiv2684605659photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2684605659
div#yiv2684605659ygrp-mlmsg #yiv2684605659ygrp-msg p a
span.yiv2684605659yshortcuts
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv2684605659
.yiv2684605659green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv2684605659 .yiv2684605659MsoNormal
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv2684605659 o {font-size:0;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659photos div div {border:1px solid
#66;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659photos div label
{color:#66;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659reco-category {font-size:77%;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659reco-desc {font-size:77%;}#yiv2684605659 .yiv2684605659replbq
{margin:4px;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659ygrp-actbar div a:first-child
{margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659ygrp-mlmsg
{font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659ygrp-mlmsg select, #yiv2684605659 input, #yiv2684605659 textarea
{font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv2684605659
#yiv2684605659ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv2684605659 code {font:115%
monospace;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659ygrp-mlmsg *
{line-height:1.22em;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659ygrp-mlmsg #yiv2684605659logo
{padding-bottom:10px;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659ygrp-msg p a
{font-family:Verdana;}#yiv2684605659 #yiv2684605659ygrp-msg
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
I've often felt that the best thing God -- in this case in His guise as Allah
-- could do to prove His existence to us doubting-Thomas atheists would be to
consider anyone who believes that killing heretics in His name would earn them
a bunch of virgins in the afterlife pre-martyred, just for believing these
things, and give them the virgins RIGHT NOW.
Just take the whole lot of them in one moment and ship them off to
full-o-virgins heaven en masse, where they can bonk their brains out for all
eternity. They don't need to actually kill anyone to earn their martyrhood,
just believe that it's OK because their holy book says it is.
What's that you say? All these people falling over dead at once back on Earth
wouldn't *really* prove the existence of God/Allah?
Yeah, you're probably right about that, but think how wonderful this planet
would be if all the people who thought like that were instantly gone. That
would be a bit of a miracle in itself. :-) :-) :-)
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
I wanted a copy but my local newsagent didn't have it. Lots of interesting
articles in the rest of the press though. An Imam in the UK is taking it as an
act of war, lots of French Muslims - mostly young ones - think the attack was
perfectly justified. It doesn't look like the all is forgiven message is
getting through
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
The line this morning to buy a copy of Charlie Hebdo.
#yiv9455488791 #yiv9455488791 -- #yiv9455488791ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv9455488791
#yiv9455488791ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv9455488791
#yiv9455488791ygrp-mkp #yiv9455488791hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv9455488791 #yiv9455488791ygrp-mkp #yiv9455488791ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv9455488791 #yiv9455488791ygrp-mkp .yiv9455488791ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv9455488791 #yiv9455488791ygrp-mkp .yiv9455488791ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv9455488791 #yiv9455488791ygrp-mkp .yiv9455488791ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv9455488791 #yiv9455488791ygrp-sponsor
#yiv9455488791ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv9455488791
#yiv9455488791ygrp-sponsor #yiv9455488791ygrp-lc #yiv9455488791hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv9455488791
#yiv9455488791ygrp-sponsor #yiv9455488791ygrp-lc .yiv9455488791ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv9455488791 #yiv9455488791actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv9455488791
#yiv9455488791activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv9455488791
#yiv9455488791activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv9455488791
#yiv9455488791activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv9455488791 #yiv9455488791activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv9455488791 #yiv9455488791activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv9455488791 #yiv9455488791activity span
.yiv9455488791underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9455488791
.yiv9455488791attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv9455488791 .yiv9455488791attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv9455488791 .yiv9455488791attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv9455488791 .yiv9455488791attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv9455488791 .yiv9455488791attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv9455488791 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv9455488791 .yiv9455488791bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv9455488791
.yiv9455488791bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv9455488791 dd.yiv9455488791last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv9455488791 dd.yiv9455488791last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv9455488791
dd.yiv9455488791last p span.yiv9455488791yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv9455488791 div.yiv9455488791attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv9455488791 div.yiv9455488791attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv9455488791 div.yiv9455488791file-title a, #yiv9455488791
div.yiv9455488791file-title a:active, #yiv9455488791
div.yiv9455488791file-title a:hover, #yiv9455488791 div.yiv9455488791file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv9455488791 div.yiv9455488791photo-title a,
#yiv9455488791 div.yiv9455488791photo-title a:active, #yiv9455488791
div.yiv9455488791photo-title a:hover, #yiv9455488791
div.yiv9455488791photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv9455488791
div#yiv9455488791ygrp-mlmsg #yiv9455488791ygrp-msg p a
span.yiv9455488791yshortcuts
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv9455488791
.yiv9455488791green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv9455488791 .yiv9455488791MsoNormal
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv9455488791 o {font-size:0;}#yiv9455488791
#yiv9455488791photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv9455488791
#yiv9455488791photos div div {border:1px solid
[FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
Here Are Some Of The Cartoons In The New Issue Of Charlie Hebdo http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/here-are-some-of-the-cartoons-in-the-new-issue-of-charlie-he?bftwutm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/here-are-some-of-the-cartoons-in-the-new-issue-of-charlie-he?bftwutm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc Here Are Some Of The Cartoons In The New Issue ... http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/here-are-some-of-the-cartoons-in-the-new-issue-of-charlie-he?bftwutm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc It features cartoons by the artists who were killed and several that mock terrorism. View on www.buzzfeed.com http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/here-are-some-of-the-cartoons-in-the-new-issue-of-charlie-he?bftwutm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
From: aryavazhi no_re...@yahoogroups.com Great photo. It also shows the difference between America and France: In America you get people lining up for the latest Iphone or Ipad, in France for a satyrical magazine. Good point, and really true. In France they still respect the intellect. But to be accurate, I think the word you're looking for is satirical magazine. A satyrical magazine would have this guy as its centerfold. :-) :-) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
If you really have to have one, you can get a copy for a few hundred dollars on Ebay. Seriously. Go to Ebay and search for Charlie Hebdo. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I wanted a copy but my local newsagent didn't have it. Lots of interesting articles in the rest of the press though. An Imam in the UK is taking it as an act of war, lots of French Muslims - mostly young ones - think the attack was perfectly justified. It doesn't look like the all is forgiven message is getting through ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : The line this morning to buy a copy of Charlie Hebdo.
[FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
Some rough impression from screenshots are here: Charlie Hebdo: 16 Seiten Mut http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/charlie-hebdo-die-acht-seiten-der-neuen-ausgabe-fotostrecke-122843.html http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/charlie-hebdo-die-acht-seiten-der-neuen-ausgabe-fotostrecke-122843.html Charlie Hebdo: 16 Seiten Mut http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/charlie-hebdo-die-acht-seiten-der-neuen-ausgabe-fotostrecke-122843.html Die neue Ausgabe von Charlies Hebdo: Auf dem Titelblatt ist ein weinender Prophet Mohammed zu sehen. View on www.spiegel.de http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/charlie-hebdo-die-acht-seiten-der-neuen-ausgabe-fotostrecke-122843.html Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: R. Crumb on Mohammed's ass
Drawing the prophet: Islam’s hidden history of Muhammad images | | | | | | | | | | | Drawing the prophet: Islam’s hidden history of Muhamm...Ban on depictions has not always been absolute – Islam has a rich heritage of images and icons dating back to the 13th century | | | | View on www.theguardian.com | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:55 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: R. Crumb on Mohammed's ass ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : One issue that has cropped up in recent days is where we've had many pundits criticizing newspapers for not re-printing the Mohammed cartoons to show solidarity with the murdered journalists of Charlie Hebdo. The offending editors are (correctly) being accused of cowardice. I've mixed feelings about this one. What I mean is: suppose some idiot were to publish an article claiming the Holocaust never happened. Then further suppose that a Jewish activist group murdered this idiot and announced that anyone who followed his example and dared to print such denials of Jewish suffering would be likewise assassinated. Now, I believe that people can express any opinion they like so I'd condemn the killing without reservation. But if I were a newspaper or magazine editor would I feel under an obligation to *myself* print the Holocaust-denying article? Surely not. I know the situations are not strictly comparable but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. Any thoughts? It's really the same situation because it's about self appointed death squads taking offence at something they see as fundamentally important, it doesn't really matter that one thing is something that is known to have happened and the other is something they've been brought up from birth to consider sacred. So it comes down to whether you - as a newspaper editor - feel there is news value in repeating it and whether the obvious shock and potential loss of readership is worth the hassle. Editors have to weigh it all up along with things like the fact we have a different satirical tradition in England. For instance, we've never beheaded our royal family en masse (yet) so this ability to mock authority so utterly isn't really in the English DNA, no matter how much we'll say we protect free speech it's illegal to use language or behaviour that may cause offence to another. I'd like to see a paper call the bluff of the thought police and publish the Hebdo cover today and see what happens, they could say Je suis Charlie as a defence and Cameron would have to pardon them. But then they'd be seen as doing something for no reason other than to be provocative and it would be out of character - even for Private Eye and Viz -without having that tradition of humour or religious sensibility in their papers. Part of me sees religion as a mental illness or social psychosis and the fear of seeing images of the prophet as a manifestation of deep anxiety, the best way to cure anxiety is to confront it head on but people generally like to be aware they have a problem and seek help themselves when they want it. Mass shock therapy may not be the best way to go. Maybe Private Eye should have more of a religious slant and we could start to gently chip away at the madness that way, how does that suit you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re But whether Charlie will approve of the sort of people that turned up for the defend free speech rally remains to be seen.: Yes. The midget Sarkozy is being mocked on social media after he pushed his way to the front row of the politicians' rally. These people have no shame. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : The cover of the latest edition of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been published in French media, and depicts the Prophet Muhammad. The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading I am Charlie, below the words all is forgiven. Brilliant. I can't see how anyone would fail to find it amusing. Open season. LOL I'm sure that Allah the merciful will approve.. But whether Charlie will approve of the sort of people that turned up for the defend free speech rally remains to be seen. In the front row you've got Vladimir Putin - who recently signed into law legislation forbidding transexual people from driving. Benyamin Netanyahu, Mohammad Abbas? Netanyahu was actually *officially* asked not to come by President Hollande. He ignored it and came anyway, and used his appearance to stir up fear among French Jews. What a putz. I noticed he was encouraging more immigration to Israel,
[FairfieldLife] Re: From my best friend in Paris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : If you really have to have one, you can get a copy for a few hundred dollars on Ebay. Seriously. Go to Ebay and search for Charlie Hebdo. There's one for £530! Is that a gross prophet margin or what? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I wanted a copy but my local newsagent didn't have it. Lots of interesting articles in the rest of the press though. An Imam in the UK is taking it as an act of war, lots of French Muslims - mostly young ones - think the attack was perfectly justified. It doesn't look like the all is forgiven message is getting through ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : The line this morning to buy a copy of Charlie Hebdo.
[FairfieldLife] Re: R. Crumb on Mohammed's ass
I didn't answer the question. You wouldn't have to publish an inaccurate article for any reason, if it was true it would be a different matter. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : One issue that has cropped up in recent days is where we've had many pundits criticizing newspapers for not re-printing the Mohammed cartoons to show solidarity with the murdered journalists of Charlie Hebdo. The offending editors are (correctly) being accused of cowardice. I've mixed feelings about this one. What I mean is: suppose some idiot were to publish an article claiming the Holocaust never happened. Then further suppose that a Jewish activist group murdered this idiot and announced that anyone who followed his example and dared to print such denials of Jewish suffering would be likewise assassinated. Now, I believe that people can express any opinion they like so I'd condemn the killing without reservation. But if I were a newspaper or magazine editor would I feel under an obligation to *myself* print the Holocaust-denying article? Surely not. I know the situations are not strictly comparable but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. Any thoughts? It's really the same situation because it's about self appointed death squads taking offence at something they see as fundamentally important, it doesn't really matter that one thing is something that is known to have happened and the other is something they've been brought up from birth to consider sacred. So it comes down to whether you - as a newspaper editor - feel there is news value in repeating it and whether the obvious shock and potential loss of readership is worth the hassle. Editors have to weigh it all up along with things like the fact we have a different satirical tradition in England. For instance, we've never beheaded our royal family en masse (yet) so this ability to mock authority so utterly isn't really in the English DNA, no matter how much we'll say we protect free speech it's illegal to use language or behaviour that may cause offence to another. I'd like to see a paper call the bluff of the thought police and publish the Hebdo cover today and see what happens, they could say Je suis Charlie as a defence and Cameron would have to pardon them. But then they'd be seen as doing something for no reason other than to be provocative and it would be out of character - even for Private Eye and Viz -without having that tradition of humour or religious sensibility in their papers. Part of me sees religion as a mental illness or social psychosis and the fear of seeing images of the prophet as a manifestation of deep anxiety, the best way to cure anxiety is to confront it head on but people generally like to be aware they have a problem and seek help themselves when they want it. Mass shock therapy may not be the best way to go. Maybe Private Eye should have more of a religious slant and we could start to gently chip away at the madness that way, how does that suit you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re But whether Charlie will approve of the sort of people that turned up for the defend free speech rally remains to be seen.: Yes. The midget Sarkozy is being mocked on social media after he pushed his way to the front row of the politicians' rally. These people have no shame. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : The cover of the latest edition of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been published in French media, and depicts the Prophet Muhammad. The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading I am Charlie, below the words all is forgiven. Brilliant. I can't see how anyone would fail to find it amusing. Open season. LOL I'm sure that Allah the merciful will approve.. But whether Charlie will approve of the sort of people that turned up for the defend free speech rally remains to be seen. In the front row you've got Vladimir Putin - who recently signed into law legislation forbidding transexual people from driving. Benyamin Netanyahu, Mohammad Abbas? Netanyahu was actually *officially* asked not to come by President Hollande. He ignored it and came anyway, and used his appearance to stir up fear among French Jews. What a putz. I noticed he was encouraging more immigration to Israel, there must be a few square miles of Palestinian land left that they haven't built on
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: R. Crumb on Mohammed's ass
What Muslims Really Believe About Cartoons Of Muhammad | | | | | | | | | | | What Muslims Really Believe About Cartoons Of Muha...Why are some Muslims upset about depictions of Muhammad? | | | | View on thinkprogress.org | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:55 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: R. Crumb on Mohammed's ass ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : One issue that has cropped up in recent days is where we've had many pundits criticizing newspapers for not re-printing the Mohammed cartoons to show solidarity with the murdered journalists of Charlie Hebdo. The offending editors are (correctly) being accused of cowardice. I've mixed feelings about this one. What I mean is: suppose some idiot were to publish an article claiming the Holocaust never happened. Then further suppose that a Jewish activist group murdered this idiot and announced that anyone who followed his example and dared to print such denials of Jewish suffering would be likewise assassinated. Now, I believe that people can express any opinion they like so I'd condemn the killing without reservation. But if I were a newspaper or magazine editor would I feel under an obligation to *myself* print the Holocaust-denying article? Surely not. I know the situations are not strictly comparable but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. Any thoughts? It's really the same situation because it's about self appointed death squads taking offence at something they see as fundamentally important, it doesn't really matter that one thing is something that is known to have happened and the other is something they've been brought up from birth to consider sacred. So it comes down to whether you - as a newspaper editor - feel there is news value in repeating it and whether the obvious shock and potential loss of readership is worth the hassle. Editors have to weigh it all up along with things like the fact we have a different satirical tradition in England. For instance, we've never beheaded our royal family en masse (yet) so this ability to mock authority so utterly isn't really in the English DNA, no matter how much we'll say we protect free speech it's illegal to use language or behaviour that may cause offence to another. I'd like to see a paper call the bluff of the thought police and publish the Hebdo cover today and see what happens, they could say Je suis Charlie as a defence and Cameron would have to pardon them. But then they'd be seen as doing something for no reason other than to be provocative and it would be out of character - even for Private Eye and Viz -without having that tradition of humour or religious sensibility in their papers. Part of me sees religion as a mental illness or social psychosis and the fear of seeing images of the prophet as a manifestation of deep anxiety, the best way to cure anxiety is to confront it head on but people generally like to be aware they have a problem and seek help themselves when they want it. Mass shock therapy may not be the best way to go. Maybe Private Eye should have more of a religious slant and we could start to gently chip away at the madness that way, how does that suit you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re But whether Charlie will approve of the sort of people that turned up for the defend free speech rally remains to be seen.: Yes. The midget Sarkozy is being mocked on social media after he pushed his way to the front row of the politicians' rally. These people have no shame. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : The cover of the latest edition of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been published in French media, and depicts the Prophet Muhammad. The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading I am Charlie, below the words all is forgiven. Brilliant. I can't see how anyone would fail to find it amusing. Open season. LOL I'm sure that Allah the merciful will approve.. But whether Charlie will approve of the sort of people that turned up for the defend free speech rally remains to be seen. In the front row you've got Vladimir Putin - who recently signed into law legislation forbidding transexual people from driving. Benyamin Netanyahu, Mohammad Abbas? Netanyahu was actually *officially* asked not to come by President Hollande. He ignored it and came anyway, and used his appearance to stir up fear among French Jews. What a putz. I noticed he was encouraging more immigration to Israel, there must be a few square miles of Palestinian land left that they haven't built
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: R. Crumb on Mohammed's ass
Your post reminds me of one of the best books I've ever read, My Name Is Red, by Nobel Prize-winning Orhan Pamuk. It's a murder mystery set in 16th century Istanbul. Each of its chapters is narrated by a different author, some of whom are not human. It's brilliant. Oh, and the murder mystery is because a miniaturist has been murdered for drawing something that someone considered heresy. My Name Is Red - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | | | | | | | | | | | My Name Is Red - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMy Name Is Red (Turkish: Benim Adım Kırmızı) is a 1998 Turkish novel by writer Orhan Pamuk translated into English by Erdağ Göknar in 2001. Pamuk would later ... | | | | View on en.wikipedia.org | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: R. Crumb on Mohammed's ass Drawing the prophet: Islam’s hidden history of Muhammad images | | | | | | | | | | | Drawing the prophet: Islam’s hidden history of Muhamm...Ban on depictions has not always been absolute – Islam has a rich heritage of images and icons dating back to the 13th century | | | | View on www.theguardian.com | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:55 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: R. Crumb on Mohammed's ass ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : One issue that has cropped up in recent days is where we've had many pundits criticizing newspapers for not re-printing the Mohammed cartoons to show solidarity with the murdered journalists of Charlie Hebdo. The offending editors are (correctly) being accused of cowardice. I've mixed feelings about this one. What I mean is: suppose some idiot were to publish an article claiming the Holocaust never happened. Then further suppose that a Jewish activist group murdered this idiot and announced that anyone who followed his example and dared to print such denials of Jewish suffering would be likewise assassinated. Now, I believe that people can express any opinion they like so I'd condemn the killing without reservation. But if I were a newspaper or magazine editor would I feel under an obligation to *myself* print the Holocaust-denying article? Surely not. I know the situations are not strictly comparable but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. Any thoughts? It's really the same situation because it's about self appointed death squads taking offence at something they see as fundamentally important, it doesn't really matter that one thing is something that is known to have happened and the other is something they've been brought up from birth to consider sacred. So it comes down to whether you - as a newspaper editor - feel there is news value in repeating it and whether the obvious shock and potential loss of readership is worth the hassle. Editors have to weigh it all up along with things like the fact we have a different satirical tradition in England. For instance, we've never beheaded our royal family en masse (yet) so this ability to mock authority so utterly isn't really in the English DNA, no matter how much we'll say we protect free speech it's illegal to use language or behaviour that may cause offence to another. I'd like to see a paper call the bluff of the thought police and publish the Hebdo cover today and see what happens, they could say Je suis Charlie as a defence and Cameron would have to pardon them. But then they'd be seen as doing something for no reason other than to be provocative and it would be out of character - even for Private Eye and Viz -without having that tradition of humour or religious sensibility in their papers. Part of me sees religion as a mental illness or social psychosis and the fear of seeing images of the prophet as a manifestation of deep anxiety, the best way to cure anxiety is to confront it head on but people generally like to be aware they have a problem and seek help themselves when they want it. Mass shock therapy may not be the best way to go. Maybe Private Eye should have more of a religious slant and we could start to gently chip away at the madness that way, how does that suit you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re But whether Charlie will approve of the sort of people that turned up for the defend free speech rally remains to be seen.: Yes. The midget Sarkozy is being mocked on social media after he pushed his way to the front row of the politicians' rally. These people have no shame. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: salyavin808
