RE: [FairfieldLife] Note to Rick Conderning his interview with Sam Harris
Rick - I doubt that Harris would think or talk about experiencing God. My take on him is that he is interested in anything that can enhance our well being, and he feels that certain forms of meditation certainly qualify. But he is highly allergic to claims that reach beyond the evidence, and to labels like God that carry so much baggage that he sees as harmful. My guess is that he will seek to describe even the describable in naturalistic terms.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Talk of Sam Harris brings me out of the FFL shadows. Harris is, in my view, one of the clearest and boldest thinkers in the world today. One may disagree with any number of his positions (that radical Islam presents a dire threat to the world, that free will is an illusion, that science can guide our moral decisions) but the intelligence and power with which he expresses himself is stunning. The surprising twist that this committed atheist and materialist is fascinated by the value that meditation can provide makes him all the more interesting. Go for it, Rick!
[FairfieldLife] RE: On belief
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is FFL's 10th Birthday
OK so I qualify as an old-timer. Getting used to that as the years go by... Happy birthday, group. I continue to skim the summaries, and not too infrequently get something to interest or amuse me. Thanks for all the fish... Would it be in bad taste to summarize a few of my favorites? This is a list of some that come immediately to mind, inevitably forgetting most and many who deserve mention, so take it as lightly as I write it: * Curtis kicks ass - a fun writer, and a man eerily close to my own mind * The Turq - prolific, pointed, disruptive, often fascinating * Buck (my old friend Doug Hamilton) - a hoot to see in the role of Old Testament prophet * Alex - always good for a quick grounding * Judy - relentless and meticulous (has anyone called her Judge Judy?) She takes her vision of integrity very seriously, brooks no quarter. * Rory - once all over the ooga-booga space, now playful and directly, plain-spokenly illuminating * Rick - the father of it all, the deus abscondus who mostly lets his creation do what it must do, with only rare intervention (more balanced than the deity, though) * Raunchy - one tough dog, a voice that cuts through it all * Meow13 or whatever number it was - a gentle voice, implausibly innocent And yes, the old guys like LB, Brigante, Rudra Joe. Rick - I guess you did not invite Sharalyn Harris to come back? I'm gone only because I do not have the time to do my presence here justice. Other fish to fry. My wishes? 1. That Judy and Turq would limit their personal attacks, chidings, baitings, name-callings, and innuendos to direct emails between themselves, sparing us all forever. 2. That the spirit of openness and curiosity that seems to prevail much more now than in the past will thrive. But who cares what I think? Just an old-timer in to say hello. As you were... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: I had meant to invite some of the old-timers back for a visit. LB Shriver, Thom Krystofiak, Off World Beings (did invite him), Rudra Joe/Kirk Bernhardt. Can you think of others?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Library and The Book
Turq - Yes, it is a rare soul who does not separate the Good from the Bad from time to time. I'm not even sure how one could avoid that, or that it would be a good thing if one could. And yes, we almost always make those distinctions prematurely, without full context- me included of course. You included, too, I submit. I do a drive by when I get pissed when someone gets personally blasted here in ways that seem to me to be irresponsible and inappropriate. It has happened to a couple of my friends who ventured into this place, and to one good friend who died a terrible and quick death from colon cancer last year and was blasted in the weeks preceding it for his choices in health care. I do not mean disagreed with - I mean blasted rather vilely (in my opinion). And I do speak out in those aftermaths - not that I imagine what I say has much effect. Rebecca, in this case, is not a friend of mine, but I still felt some injustice. And I may have overreacted somewhat in my concluding remarks. I don't just drop in - I do see the denizens. In the early days of FFLife I posted a lot. There were long and friendly disputes and investigations between me and LB Shriver and others. I stopped mostly because the emerging style of the discourse on the board too often did not appeal to me enough to join in anymore, and because I lacked the time. I enjoy reading a few of the frequent posters, particularly Curtis and you and a handful of others sometimes, but I have other battles to engage, usually, than the ones that predictably flare up here. If you have kicked the fight with Judy habit, I sincerely applaud you - not so much because it would be good for you, but because I think it improves the quality of FFLife for those who read it (except of course those who **like** to read exchanges like those...) Cheers --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, krysto krysto@ wrote in an earlier post: Let me close by saying that some of the denizens of Fairfield Life once again showed their nastiness and their terribly small- mindedness in the rush to judgment about Rebecca. A striking lack of willingness to find out what is really going on, preferring instead to apply snap judgments and to wail and posture and go on the attack. This is sad, and I think rather destructive of some of the values I personally wish we could be fostering. And in this post followed up with: The values I referred to do not preclude stating my direct reaction to posts that I read myself. I was objecting to presumptive mud-slinging involving a person and policies about which certain posters had no direct knowledge. I have seen before on this forum people get to work grinding up a person's public reputation with very little in the way of firm grounds. And no apparent interest in the full story. Convict first, then assess facts if they happen to appear later. Ahem. See Alex's restrained and informative reply to merudanda in the following post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/255992 I assume you are going to rip merudanda a new one and suggest that he showed small-mindedness in his rush to judgment by implying that the moderators of FFL were censoring him. I assume you are going to similarly take him to task for doing this based on policies about which he obviously had no knowledge and while showing no apparent interest in the full story. Right? No, I thought not. merudanda is one of the FFL Good Guys. :-) My point is that a LOT of people here wear their I-know-who-the-Good-Guys-and-who-the-Bad-Guys-are- and-what-they-intended-when-they-did-or-said-this- colored glasses when reading FFL, not just those who have a less than favorable view of Maharishi or TM or the TMO. In this particular tempest in a pisspot, I laid low. In fact, I was one of the voices advising against a rush to judgment. So was I one of these nasty, small-minded denizens of FFL in this case, or was I one of the Good Guys (the ones you approve of)? Curious minds want to know. :-) I'm just messing with you, krysto. And wondering who you are because you seem to have a history of dropping in once a year or so to bitch about the vibe of FFL, then dropping out again. It's like a drive-by hooting. :-) I'm also wondering whether you actually *see* the place when you drop in or, like the denizens you rail against above, see instead what you expect to see. For example, in one of your drive-bys from 2008, you wrote to Rick: You focus on the Barry/Judy battles, and I agree that if one or both would just drop 100% of their personal fighting, cold turkey, permanently, it would be better for all the rest of us who read FFL. Did you notice during this latest drive-by that this had happened, at least from one side? Back on August 11th
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Library and The Book
So denizen is name-calling? It may be an old-fashioned word, but I hardly think it is a slur. As for the other attributes I used, I should have made it clearer that it is only a rather small number of posters here that, in my opinion, exhibit those qualities rather frequently and sometimes rather intensely. Of course, a small number of posters also totally dominate FFLife, at least in terms of the post counts, and so the overall tone of the place can be drastically skewed by the few. The values I referred to do not preclude stating my direct reaction to posts that I read myself. I was objecting to presumptive mud-slinging involving a person and policies about which certain posters had no direct knowledge. I have seen before on this forum people get to work grinding up a person's public reputation with very little in the way of firm grounds. And no apparent interest in the full story. Convict first, then assess facts if they happen to appear later. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: Who is we? And what values do you think *you're* fostering when you name-call and refer to people you disagree with as denizens and their very valid concerns as wailing and posturing? Sal
[FairfieldLife] The Library and The Book
I wrote to Rebecca Huggins, director of the Fairfield Library, asking why she decided not to include the donated copy of Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay in the collection. I stressed the importance of freedom of expression. She then invited me to come talk with her, which I did today. Here is what happened, from her point of view. 1. Rick Archer brought her the book, and strongly urged her to read it first, then offer it in the library. She took it home, but was unable to find time to read it right away, as a couple of staff members were out sick and she was working very long hours. 2. She says she never decided that the book would not be added to the collection. However, the library board has established guidelines for deciding whether a new book should be offered, and a key point is that the book has had some authoritative published reviews. Authoritative was not the word she used, I think, but I cannot recall the exact word - it was along those lines. It's harder for a self-published book to qualify for this, obviously, although many self-published books manage to get such reviews. So on this basis, the book may have been destined to sit on the sidelines at least until some reviews were available (I assume reviews on Fairfield Life do not qualify). 3. She seems to take her position very seriously, and also feels strongly about freedom of expression. She says that she is dead-against censorship. Someone came in a while back insisting that she remove a book that was very critical of Obama, telling her that she had a parental role for the community that she was not fulfilling by letting such wrong-headed books into the library. This book happened to have been a NYT best seller, often reviewed. She did not bend to that pressure to censor, and she insists that censorship played no role in the process with the Robes of Silk book either. 4. She received enough requests from people - or complaints (many of them probably inspired by FFLife) - that she took the matter to the Regional Librarian. She was given a go-ahead to offer the book, and was told that sometimes the will of the people overrides standard policies. And the book was added to the library collection. I detected absolutely no sense in Rebecca that she regrets the book being in the library, or that she wishes there could have been a way to keep it out. She could easily have stuck to the policy and not asked the Regional Librarian if she simply wanted to block the book. As she said, there are thousands of books in the library that she personally disagrees with very deeply. But as Director, she has no desire or intention to make the collection correspond with her personal beliefs or values. Let me close by saying that some of the denizens of Fairfield Life once again showed their nastiness and their terribly small-mindedness in the rush to judgment about Rebecca. A striking lack of willingness to find out what is really going on, preferring instead to apply snap judgments and to wail and posture and go on the attack. This is sad, and I think rather destructive of some of the values I personally wish we could be fostering.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Library and The Book
One thing to add: Rebecca seemed genuinely puzzled by what would motivate people to claim publicly that she is a banner of books, people who do not know her and do not know anything about the situation. I have seen much worse on this forum than the treatment of Rebecca. I could give her no good answer, other than this is something a certain group of people on FFLife just seem to enjoy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, krysto kry...@... wrote: I wrote to Rebecca Huggins, director of the Fairfield Library, asking why she decided not to include the donated copy of Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay in the collection. I stressed the importance of freedom of expression. She then invited me to come talk with her, which I did today. Here is what happened, from her point of view. 1. Rick Archer brought her the book, and strongly urged her to read it first, then offer it in the library. She took it home, but was unable to find time to read it right away, as a couple of staff members were out sick and she was working very long hours. 2. She says she never decided that the book would not be added to the collection. However, the library board has established guidelines for deciding whether a new book should be offered, and a key point is that the book has had some authoritative published reviews. Authoritative was not the word she used, I think, but I cannot recall the exact word - it was along those lines. It's harder for a self-published book to qualify for this, obviously, although many self-published books manage to get such reviews. So on this basis, the book may have been destined to sit on the sidelines at least until some reviews were available (I assume reviews on Fairfield Life do not qualify). 3. She seems to take her position very seriously, and also feels strongly about freedom of expression. She says that she is dead-against censorship. Someone came in a while back insisting that she remove a book that was very critical of Obama, telling her that she had a parental role for the community that she was not fulfilling by letting such wrong-headed books into the library. This book happened to have been a NYT best seller, often reviewed. She did not bend to that pressure to censor, and she insists that censorship played no role in the process with the Robes of Silk book either. 4. She received enough requests from people - or complaints (many of them probably inspired by FFLife) - that she took the matter to the Regional Librarian. She was given a go-ahead to offer the book, and was told that sometimes the will of the people overrides standard policies. And the book was added to the library collection. I detected absolutely no sense in Rebecca that she regrets the book being in the library, or that she wishes there could have been a way to keep it out. She could easily have stuck to the policy and not asked the Regional Librarian if she simply wanted to block the book. As she said, there are thousands of books in the library that she personally disagrees with very deeply. But as Director, she has no desire or intention to make the collection correspond with her personal beliefs or values. Let me close by saying that some of the denizens of Fairfield Life once again showed their nastiness and their terribly small-mindedness in the rush to judgment about Rebecca. A striking lack of willingness to find out what is really going on, preferring instead to apply snap judgments and to wail and posture and go on the attack. This is sad, and I think rather destructive of some of the values I personally wish we could be fostering.
