[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: History shows that not to be true at all. Most are just greedy bastards who care little about their fellow humanity. People like Bill Gates are a rare exception Well 280 billion annually in american philanthropy sort of deflates your thesis. (Or are you concerned about the miserliness of Europeans -- who have lower levels of philanthropy?) Sure I would love to see american philanthropy at a trillion or 10 trillion a year. European and Asian philanthropy matching such. It can happen. It requires a change of ethos. A softening of world consciousness if you will. Its progressively happening. What will stop such in its tracks is confisgatory tax rates of 95-100% You still don't get that a progressive tax means people won't try to earn another dime if they are going to pay more in taxes. I get it. And I think you You are dead wrong. Many such people will spend every waking hour on how to shelter income. Very unproductive for society to have many of its better minds engaged in such. And if I finally get your plan (let see if I do), it will lead to a such surge of conspicuous consuption and a drop in savings and investment -- two things that are huge drags on the economy. So let me see if I get your plan. If one's ESTATE were to reach 12 mil, you would then tax marginal INCOME at 100% rates. If this is true, then when net worth is 11,900 or so, rational (and irrational alike) people will spend 100% of their income and save and invest nothing. Being forced to spend everything, against their, long-honed spirit to save and invest, they will spend their money primarily on conspicuous consumption and toys. How this mitigates greed in society at large is beyond me. But I probably have misunderstood your plan. I can't imagine anyone with a straight face suggesting something so destructive to the economy and a savings/investment ethos -- which is at the core of productivity (the basis for wage increases for all) -- and to wildly inflame greed, shallow values, consumerism, class jealousy and crass materialism. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was just reading in the Times about Richard Grasso, who, making $12 million a year, went through all kinds of contortions to obtain his $140 million retirement package. At some point in the accumulation of wealth, money ceases to be a medium of exchange and becomes something entirely different, having to do, as Bhairitu suggests, with ego and power. Your attitude toward it changes in a way that makes it literally impossible to empathize with the person for whom, say, fresh blueberries are a luxury they can't afford. You no longer have to make choices based on what something costs. Money becomes an abstraction with no practical consequences in terms of what you do with it, except those that have to do with how much *more* of this abstraction you are able to accumulate. When rich people talk about money, they're talking about something entirely different from what poor and middle-class people mean when they talk about it. They might as well be on different planets. Your speculations of how others', or perhaps your own, values and motivations may change with substantial wealth is simply speculation -- not a well reserched set of studies developing a concensus view of researchers on this issue. Same with my speculations. However, I assume your thesis is not a universal one. That is, when you say, when rich people talk about money, they're talking about something entirely different from what poor and middle-class people mean when they talk about it. I assume you don't really mean all rich people. There are ample cases of some if not many wealthly not being much phased by wealth. Warren Buffet, as I recall, still drives an old Volvo and lives in a middle class home in Omaha. Many of the net and PC fortunes are driving foundations and lead jeans based lives. I know and am aware of those of wealth who are more down to earth and empathetic than most. So while Paris Hilton makes a great case against inherited wealth, and it being associated with low social consciousness and shallow maerialist values, such are not universal among the rich. (Was it Paris or Nicole who asked, Whats Walmart?) It appears you are confusing correlation with causation. There certainly is some degree of correlation between (often sudden) wealth and shallow values among some nouveau riche. But it is clearly not an overwhelming and universal trait in all, perhaps not even in a majority of cases. (Particularly sudden) wealth does not create shallow values, low empathy with the non-wealthy, and low compassion, even if a moderate correlation can be shown in some cases. Nor can strong social values, strong empathy with others, and expansive compassion be shown to be caused by lack of weath. Here the correlation is quite weak I would suggest. I can think of an abundant of examples where shallow values, low empathy with others, and low compassion are quite manifest among the non-wealthy. (Take this list for example. :) ) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
Original posts I was just reading in the Times about Richard Grasso, who, making $12 million a year, went through all kinds of contortions to obtain his $140 million retirement package. At some point in the accumulation of wealth, money ceases to be a medium of exchange and becomes something entirely different, having to do, as Bhairitu suggests, with ego and power. Your attitude toward it changes in a way that makes it literally impossible to empathize with the person for whom, say, fresh blueberries are a luxury they can't afford. You no longer have to make choices based on what something costs. Money becomes an abstraction with no practical consequences in terms of what you do with it, except those that have to do with how much *more* of this abstraction you are able to accumulate. When rich people talk about money, they're talking about something entirely different from what poor and middle-class people mean when they talk about it. They might as well be on different planets. Your speculations of how others', or perhaps your own, values and motivations may change with substantial wealth is simply speculation -- not a well reserched set of studies developing a concensus view of researchers on this issue. Same with my speculations. However, I assume your thesis is not a universal one. That is, when you say, when rich people talk about money, they're talking about something entirely different from what poor and middle-class people mean when they talk about it. I assume you don't really mean all rich people. There are ample cases of some if not many wealthly not being much phased by wealth. Warren Buffet, as I recall, still drives an old Volvo and lives in a middle class home in Omaha. Many of the net and PC fortunes are driving foundations and lead jeans based lives. I know and am aware of those of wealth who are more down to earth and empathetic than most. So while Paris Hilton makes a great case against inherited wealth, and it being associated with low social consciousness and shallow maerialist values, such are not universal among the rich. (Was it Paris or Nicole who asked, Whats Walmart?) It appears you are confusing correlation with causation. There certainly is some degree of correlation between (often sudden) wealth and shallow values among some nouveau riche. But it is clearly not an overwhelming and universal trait in all, perhaps not even in a majority of cases. (Particularly sudden) wealth does not create shallow values, low empathy with the non-wealthy, and low compassion, even if a moderate correlation can be shown in some cases. Nor can strong social values, strong empathy with others, and expansive compassion be shown to be caused by lack of weath. Here the correlation is quite weak I would suggest. I can think of an abundant of examples where shallow values, low empathy with others, and low compassion are quite manifest among the non-wealthy. (Take this list for example. :) ) It appears you are confusing correlation with causation. There certainly is some degree of correlation between (often sudden) wealth and shallow values among some nouveau riche. I don't believe I said anything about shallow values. You might want to go back and read what I *did* write again. s OK, sorry, I should have been more redundant in my writing and included the tri-set of characteristics that i stated twice in the short post, that I thought relevant to the discussion shallow values, low empathy with the non-wealthy, and low compassion. In the causual form or writing here, I admit I did short-hand shallow values, low empathy with the non-wealthy, and low compassion to solely shallow values in the passage you cited. All aplologies. I should have said shallow values, etc.. Or better, redundantly list the tri-set a third time, It appears you are confusing correlation with causation. There certainly is some degree of correlation between (often sudden) wealth and shallow values, low empathy with the non-wealthy, and low compassion among some nouveau riche. Then you might argue, or even politely clarify, that you were only referring to low empathy, and not shallow values and low compassion. And you could have stated, if it were the case, as I infer from your comments, that you disagree that that the same rich that exhibit low empathy, typically also exhibit shallow values and low compassion. Ok then. Thats a POV. Not one I find compelling, but if thats your point, fine. But I am heartened that you find nothing more wrong with my thesis that you are confusing confusing correlation with causation -- other than a lack of an etc., or a more clearly differentiation between your point about empathy and my broader point of empathy, values and compassion. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: When rich people talk about money, they're talking about something entirely different from what poor and middle-class people mean when they talk about it. They might as well be on different planets. Your speculations of how others', or perhaps your own, values and motivations may change with substantial wealth is simply speculation -- not a well reserched set of studies developing a concensus view of researchers on this issue. Same with my speculations. snore Yes, my comment was a bit leaden. But I could not think of a better alternative to counter the, IMO, weak writing that conveys a broad sweeping generalization about a group, as if its universal, when it at best applies to only a portion of the group. How would you suggest writers tighten up their phrasing to better correspond to reality and not lead readers to erroneous impressions? Perhaps something as simple as the following would do. When [some] rich people talk about money, [it appears to me]they're talking about something entirely different from what poor and middle-class people mean when they talk about it. [This segment of the rich] [They (excluded)] might as well be on different planets [as far as I and my values are concerned]. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Free Saddam Hussein'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy never met a mass-murdering dictator she didn't like. Bush? Nixon? Oh, you said dictators, not almost or hopeful dictators. My mistake. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes and Stepped up Basis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Few people are aware that any suggestion for the elimination of the estate tax comes with the elimination of the stepped-up basis for capital gains. Currently, all capital gains get stepped-up of their cost basis to market value on the day of death...so when your heirs inherit an asset of your's with a capital gain the cost basis on it is considered the market value on the day of death...in other words, ZERO capital gains. With the elimination of the estate tax (as the law currently calls for in the year 2010...and JUST the year 2010...it comes back in 2011) is the elimination of the stepped-up basisso the government gives with one hand and takes with the other. So if and when the government eliminates the estate tax don't scream that it is a give-away for the rich because the rich very well may end up paying MORE on death than if there was an estate tax... By the way, that is the way it is in socialist Canada: there is no estate tax but there IS a capital gains tax on death. Shemp, While its a good point you raise about the (partial) take back due to loss of stepped-up basis, I am unable to construct an example where an heir would pay more taxes with an original basis and a 15% capital gains tax vs an inheritance tax of ~35-46% on a stepped up basis. Can you provide one. For example using current limits, if origianl basis in a house is 300k and is sold by the estate for 1,300K (not unusual in todays inflated RE market) then heirs would be subject to 15% x 1Mil capital gain = $150k. (Unless the house had been placed in an irrevocable trust prior to the willer's death. If so, then as I understand it, the basis is stepped up, and is under the estate tax limit, thus no tax on the house is due.) In contrast, if no estate tax exepemtion were in place, the heirs would owe 35%+ on the 1.3 mil = ~450k. Much more than the $150 with the stepped up basis and estate tax limitations. Can you clarify when and how an heir would pay more taxes with an original basis and a 15% capital gains tax vs an inheritance tax of ~35-46% on a stepped up basis? Thanks. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: When rich people talk about money, they're talking about something entirely different from what poor and middle-class people mean when they talk about it. They might as well be on different planets. Your speculations of how others', or perhaps your own, values and motivations may change with substantial wealth is simply speculation -- not a well reserched set of studies developing a concensus view of researchers on this issue. Same with my speculations. snore Yes, my comment was a bit leaden. But I could not think of a better alternative to counter the, IMO, weak writing that conveys a broad sweeping generalization about a group, as if its universal, when it at best applies to only a portion of the group. I believe the portion you quoted above applies across the board, even to people like Bill Gates. The snore was because mine was a pretty unexceptional observation, almost a truism; That the rich lack empathy towards the non-rich perhaps it is almost a truism to you and perhaps to your peers, but its far from universl. To me, to imply its universal (which I infer from your comments) is a cognitive error, a social myth, a quite empirically ungrounded specualation. Perhaps if you (to coin an insult :)) that 'you read my post' :) you would have seen a few examples and my personal observation that a number of wealthy have high degrees of empathy (empathy being the trait you observed or speculated was low among the rich). Additionally, as I observed, (and am NOT claiming that you also observed), there is a high degree of compassion and deep values among at least some rich. And some notable exceptions, such as Paris Hilton. but you have a habit of taking exception to such observations even when there's virtually no little excuse to do so, I am not citing small exceptions, but quite large ones, in my experience. More broadly, I am campaigning against weak sweeping universal generalizations made to an entire class,when there is little evidence for such universality other than your (quite limited,IMO) personal sense of truisms. apparently just to hear yourself talk. If you wish to start a new thread on The Massive Shortcommings of New.Morning I could start it with at least several 100 points. But I am biased. I am sure you cite 1000's of points, real or imagined. And just let Unc get started. Perhaps you and others can start the thread and I will add as my time, deep introspection and humor enable. However, I do think such a topic should be in its own thread, and not mixed in with discussions of ideas. Arguments and points taken should be strong enough to stand on their own merits -- and not rely on suppositions that the poster has weak character traits (my inference, perhaps incorrect, of what you wrote above.) And some people will not be interesed at all in The Massive Shortcommings of New.Morning, and skip over the post. Others will jump right to it, like some skip the front page to get to the comics. I know I will, being a superficial kind of guy, I will jump right to that thread, and ignore the substantive ones. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: When rich people talk about money, they're talking about something entirely different from what poor and middle-class people mean when they talk about it. They might as well be on different planets. Your speculations of how others', or perhaps your own, values and motivations may change with substantial wealth is simply speculation -- not a well reserched set of studies developing a concensus view of researchers on this issue. Same with my speculations. snore Yes, my comment was a bit leaden. But I could not think of a better alternative to counter the, IMO, weak writing that conveys a broad sweeping generalization about a group, as if its universal, when it at best applies to only a portion of the group. I believe the portion you quoted above applies across the board, even to people like Bill Gates. The snore was because mine was a pretty unexceptional observation, almost a truism; That the rich lack empathy towards the non-rich perhaps it is almost a truism to you and perhaps to your peers, but its far from universl. To me, to imply its universal (which I infer from your comments) is a cognitive error, a social myth, a quite empirically ungrounded specualation. Perhaps if you (to coin an insult :)) that 'you read my post' :) you would have seen a few examples and my personal observation that a number of wealthy have high degrees of empathy (empathy being the trait you observed or speculated was low among the rich). Additionally, as I observed, (and am NOT claiming that you also observed), there is a high degree of compassion and deep values among at least some rich. And some notable exceptions, such as Paris Hilton. but you have a habit of taking exception to such observations even when there's virtually no little excuse to do so, I am not citing small exceptions, but quite large ones, in my experience. More broadly, I am campaigning against weak sweeping universal generalizations made to an entire class,when there is little evidence for such universality other than your (quite limited,IMO) personal sense of truisms. apparently just to hear yourself talk. If you wish to start a new thread on The Massive Shortcommings of New.Morning I could start it with at least several 100 points. But I am biased. I am sure you cite 1000's of points, real or imagined. And just let Unc get started. Perhaps you and others can start the thread and I will add as my time, deep introspection and humor enable. However, I do think such a topic should be in its own thread, and not mixed in with discussions of ideas. Arguments and points taken should be strong enough to stand on their own merits -- and not rely on suppositions that the poster has weak character traits (my inference, perhaps incorrect, of what you wrote above.) And some people will not be interesed at all in The Massive Shortcommings of New.Morning, and skip over the post. Others will jump right to it, like some skip the front page to get to the comics. I know I will, being a superficial kind of guy, I will jump right to that thread, and ignore the substantive ones. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] The Massive Shortcomings of New.Morning
From adjacent post: [to Judy] If you wish to start a new thread on The Massive Shortcomings of New.Morning I could start it with at least several 100 points. But I am biased. I am sure you cite 1000's of points, real or imagined. And just let Unc get started. Perhaps you and others can start the thread and I will add as my time, deep introspection and humor enable. However, I do think such a topic should be in its own thread, and not mixed in with discussions of ideas. Arguments and points taken should be strong enough to stand on their own merits -- and not rely on suppositions that the poster has weak character traits (my inference, perhaps incorrect, of what you wrote above.) And some people will not be interesed at all in The Massive Shortcomings of New.Morning, and skip over the post. Others will jump right to it, like some skip the front page to get to the comics. I know I will, being a superficial kind of guy, I will jump right to that thread, and ignore the substantive ones. == OK Judy, the ball is in your court. Fire away. But try to keep your points on The Massive Shortcomings of New.Morning in this thread, and not as substitites for real points of criticism of ideas, concept or POVs in other threads. Of course all others are cordially welcomed to chime in. Unc, Tom, Jim, Peter all have good, perhaps at times entertaining, insights on this topic. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
Judy, Again, I am heartedned that your manfiest critique of my observation -- that you maybe confusing correleation with causation with regards to being rich and empathy towards the 'non-rich' -- is a minor and not substantive one, and focuses on my poor traits -- not a critique of the thesis itelf. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: When rich people talk about money, they're talking about something entirely different from what poor and middle-class people mean when they talk about it. They might as well be on different planets. Your speculations of how others', or perhaps your own, values and motivations may change with substantial wealth is simply speculation -- not a well reserched set of studies developing a concensus view of researchers on this issue. Same with my speculations. snore Yes, my comment was a bit leaden. But I could not think of a better alternative to counter the, IMO, weak writing that conveys a broad sweeping generalization about a group, as if its universal, when it at best applies to only a portion of the group. I believe the portion you quoted above applies across the board, even to people like Bill Gates. The snore was because mine was a pretty unexceptional observation, almost a truism; That the rich lack empathy towards the non-rich perhaps it is almost a truism to you and perhaps to your peers, but its far from universl. To me, to imply its universal (which I infer from your comments) is a cognitive error, a social myth, a quite empirically ungrounded specualation. Perhaps if you (to coin an insult :)) that 'you read my post' :) you would have seen a few examples and my personal observation that a number of wealthy have high degrees of empathy (empathy being the trait you observed or speculated was low among the rich). Additionally, as I observed, (and am NOT claiming that you also observed), there is a high degree of compassion and deep values among at least some rich. And some notable exceptions, such as Paris Hilton. but you have a habit of taking exception to such observations even when there's virtually no little excuse to do so, I am not citing small exceptions, but quite large ones, in my experience. More broadly, I am campaigning against weak sweeping universal generalizations made to an entire class,when there is little evidence for such universality other than your (quite limited,IMO) personal sense of truisms. apparently just to hear yourself talk. If you wish to start a new thread on The Massive Shortcommings of New.Morning I could start it with at least several 100 points. But I am biased. I am sure you cite 1000's of points, real or imagined. And just let Unc get started. Perhaps you and others can start the thread and I will add as my time, deep introspection and humor enable. However, I do think such a topic should be in its own thread, and not mixed in with discussions of ideas. Arguments and points taken should be strong enough to stand on their own merits -- and not rely on suppositions that the poster has weak character traits (my inference, perhaps incorrect, of what you wrote above.) And some people will not be interesed at all in The Massive Shortcommings of New.Morning, and skip over the post. Others will jump right to it, like some skip the front page to get to the comics. I know I will, being a superficial kind of guy, I will jump right to that thread, and ignore the substantive ones. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Vit B12 Methyl Form
Thanks card for posting the article on B12. For decades, as a vegetarian (mostly -- with a 2-3 year trial exception of fish and poultry ) and vegan at times, I have been aware of the need to supplement ones diet with B12. I did not know the low absorbsion rate of the almost universally used form of B12 used in supplements, cobalamin. I bought some of the more absorbable sub-lingual methyl form yesterday -- its 500 mcg per tab (hm that phrase has an oddly familiar ring to it). The RNI (Required Nutritional Intake) is 1.5 mcg. So today, my brain may be functioning at 300+ times its usual sluggish rate. :) Actually, I do feel better, more energy, but that might just be from the coffee I just had from my neighbor the meth manufacturer. :) Hardly a controlled study. But I suggest others look into trying the subligual methyl form of B12. Here is another article that states similar things as the one you posted. First an excerpt: A deficiency often manifests itself first in the development of neurological dysfunction that is almost indistinguishable from senile dementia and Alzheimer's disease. There is little question that many patients exhibiting symptoms of Alzheimer's actually suffer from a vitamin B12 deficiency. Their symptoms are totally reversible through effective supplementation. Maybe someone can give MMY daily methyl -- sublingual B12, or shots, and see if the TMO is suddenly transformed to something like the 70's. a vitamin B12 deficiency may not manifest itself until after 5 or 6 years of a diet supplying inadequate amounts. Vitamin B12 functions as a methyl donor and works with folic acid in the synthesis of DNA and red blood cells and is vitally important in maintaining the health of the insulation sheath (myelin sheath) that surrounds nerve cells. The classical vitamin B12 deficiency disease is pernicious anaemia, a serious disease characterized by large, immature red blood cells. It is now clear though, that a vitamin B12 deficiency can have serious consequences long before anaemia is evident. The normal blood level of vitamin B12 ranges between 200 and 600 picogram/milliliter (148-443 picomol/liter). A deficiency often manifests itself first in the development of neurological dysfunction that is almost indistinguishable from senile dementia and Alzheimer's disease. There is little question that many patients exhibiting symptoms of Alzheimer's actually suffer from a vitamin B12 deficiency. Their symptoms are totally reversible through effective supplementation. A low level of vitamin B12 has also been associated with asthma, depression, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, tinnitus, diabetic neuropathy and low sperm counts. Clearly, it is very important to maintain adequate body stores of this crucial vitamin. The amount of vitamin B12 actually needed by the body is very small, probably only about 2 micrograms or 2 millionth of a gram/day. Unfortunately, vitamin B12 is not absorbed very well so much larger amounts need to be supplied through the diet or supplementation. The richest dietary sources of vitamin B12 are liver, especially lamb's liver, and kidneys. Eggs, cheese and some species of fish also supply small amounts, but vegetables and fruits are very poor sources. Several surveys have shown that most strict, long-term vegetarians are vitamin B12 deficient. Many elderly people are also deficient because their production of the intrinsic factor needed to absorb the vitamin from the small intestine decline rapidly with age. Fortunately, oral supplementation with vitamin B12 is safe, efficient and inexpensive. Most multi-vitamin pills contain 100-200 microgram of the cyanocobalamin form of B-12. This must be converted to methylcobalamin or adenosylcobalamin before it can be used by the body. The actual absorption of B12 is also a problem with supplements. Swallowing 500 micrograms of cyanocobalamin can result in absorption of as little as 1.8 microgram so most multivitamins do not provide an adequate daily intake. The best approach is to dissolve a sublingual tablet of methylcobalamin (1000 micrograms) under the tongue every day. That will be sufficient to maintain adequate body stores. However, if a deficiency is actually present then 2000 microgram/day for one month is recommended followed by 1000 microgram/day. Some physicians still maintain that monthly injections of vitamin B12 is required to maintain adequate levels in the elderly and in patients with a diagnosed deficiency. There is however, no scientific evidence supporting the notion that injections are more effective than sublingual supplementation. http://www.yourhealthbase.com/vitamin_B12.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~-
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Free Saddam Hussein'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip For Bush to say Saddam wouldn't let them in is simply a lie. Now THAT'S a novel experience: reading that Judy is calling someone a liar. Perhaps if you didn't lie so much, you wouldn't find the experience so familiar. Lets put up to scientific scrutiny: Does i) shemp's nose progressively grow longer, and/or ii) are his pants indeed on fire? Submit articles for peer review to the Journal of Infancy Insults, 1008 InYourFace Lane, University of UpYourAss, Poodunk, FU, 6, USA. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: new.morning wrote: BTW, do you fancy yourself a Libertarian? You read that way. I don't fancy myself anything. I don't take some platform and adopt it. I think through each issue and decide on the merits. My views certainly are not universally libertairan. Ask me about pollution. Your views come off as Libertarian. OK, you personally find my views similar to Libertarians. Your point is? Any particular relevance that you attach to that? Or just making causual non-related observations? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: Judy, Again, I am heartedned that your manfiest critique of my observation -- that you maybe confusing correleation with causation with regards to being rich and empathy towards the 'non-rich' -- is a minor and not substantive one Oh, actually it's a substantive and major one: You're completely wrong. You also like to hear yourself talk. OK then. So it be written, so it is true. If only the world agreed with you, that your just saying it makes a strong case, you would be in fat city. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: Judy, Again, I am heartedned that your manfiest critique of my observation -- that you maybe confusing correleation with causation with regards to being rich and empathy towards the 'non-rich' -- is a minor and not substantive one Oh, actually it's a substantive and major one: You're completely wrong. You also like to hear yourself talk. OK then. So it be written, so it is true. If only the world agreed with you, that your just saying it makes a strong case, you would be in fat city. And again -- I think this is the fourth go around, I am heartened that you have not offered a single direct critique of my observation -- that you may be confusing correleation with causation with regards to being rich and empathy towards the 'non-rich'. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: Judy, Again, I am heartedned that your manfiest critique of my observation -- that you maybe confusing correleation with causation with regards to being rich and empathy towards the 'non-rich' -- is a minor and not substantive one Oh, actually it's a substantive and major one: You're completely wrong. You also like to hear yourself talk. OK then. So it be written, so it is true. If only the world agreed with you, that your just saying it makes a strong case, you would be in fat city. And again -- I think this is the fourth go around, I am heartened that you have not offered a single direct critique of my observation (aka the observation) -- that you may be confusing correleation with causation with regards to being rich and empathy towards the 'non-rich'. If you have any direct and substantial critiques of the observation, please post your actual argument. Step by step. And, as you know, simply addressing side issues really does not address the core point. They simply divert attention for a second or two. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Massive Shortcomings of New.Morning
Re: The Massive Shortcomings of New.Morning --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: From adjacent post: [to Judy] If you wish to start a new thread on The Massive Shortcomings of New.Morning Did I say I wanted to start a new thread on The Massive Shortcomings of New.Morning? No. There are actually many things you do not say. Not every post on this forum must be directly related to something you explicitly said.(No you did not say that. I inferred it as a possble hypothesis for your constant asking such questions as Did I say that?. I have other hypotheses. Wanna hear them?) Though we could start a new chat group that must confrom to such rules. What fun! (And to short-cut your next possible question -- based on pattern, 'no, you did not explicitly say you wanted to do that. I thought it up myself.' I am sure you are getting the hang of this by now. My points, both implied and explicit, that you were evidently unable to follow, were: 1) you made an observation of a personal nature on my traits as if that were a valid substitute for an effective argument to the points in my post. 2) I simply reminded you that usually such personal observations are not a useful or valid substitute for an effective argument to the points of a post. 3) And I asked if, suggesting was the implied tone and meaning, (note the I, not you, thats a big clue here), we should start a separate thread on that topic. The implication was that IF you have MORE observations of a personal nature on my traits, then we could start a separate thread, so that we could do the topic justice. 4) And doing such will separate personal observations and attacks from the arguments and discussion of substantive ideas. A good thing in my view. I know its a pretty complex chain of logic, but I am confident that if you if you are still confusedre, if you re-read it, that it will be become clearer. If not, if you still confused, please follow-up off-line so as not to waste the forum's on such matters that some may find remedial. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: new_morning_blank_slate wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: new.morning wrote: BTW, do you fancy yourself a Libertarian? You read that way. I don't fancy myself anything. I don't take some platform and adopt it. I think through each issue and decide on the merits. My views certainly are not universally libertairan. Ask me about pollution. Your views come off as Libertarian. OK, you personally find my views similar to Libertarians. Your point is? Any particular relevance that you attach to that? Or just making causual non-related observations? It allows for a certain predictability in your responses. Why you seek to predict my responses, which I infer is a type of sterotyping, pegging, profiling, prejudgement heuristic that you find of value (I don't), instead of actually reading the posts with an unbiased mind, is not clear. But if you are pegging me as a mainstream libertarian, your predictions will fail miserably on some topics. Want to try gun control, pollution and education? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vit B12 Methyl Form
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like many TM'ers back in the late 1970's I gave up on being a vegetarian. I had too many bouts with hypoglycemia, anemia and vata derangements. Using supplements will not often deal with the pH imbalance that occurs in some wannabe vegetarians which will only be solved with the inclusion of some animal protein in their diet. Now just watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth raising this subject causes. :) Hey if it works for you, great. I tried fish and poultry for 3 years after 30 years of veg, and found it didn't suit me, so I am back to a neo-veg. No grains, grams of carbs no more than grams of protein, lots of fresh veg, little fruit (focus on pomigranate,cranberry, blueberry -- the high polyphenols and anti-oxidants). There are many many possible veg diets. One cannot say all are bad or unsuitable because the type they tried was not good. My own experience, and observations of others, is that TMO's load up on carbs -- rice, dahl, chapati, little raw veg, lots of fruit. No wonder they get back results with such high carb levels and low protein. Its a miracle that longtime consmers of such are not all diabetics (oops, MMY, Devendra, Amma, more, etc, all diabetics I think). And did you use methyl form of b-12? If not, that clearly corrleates with and could explain anemia,low energy, hypoglycemia, etc. And a high carb, high legume consumption can correlate with vata derangments. NONE of this is necessary in a well-structured veg diet. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Massive Shortcomings of New.Morning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: Of course all others are cordially welcomed to chime in. Unc, Tom, Jim, Peter all have good, perhaps at times entertaining, insights on this topic. The topic is all about self importance, and thus boring. Judy nailed it. Often you seem to post for no other reason than to hear yourself talk. I am glad it seems that way to you. Provides you with some amusement I suspect. Good. You seem seem [to you] being the operative concept. to be used to all this chatter going on in your mind all the time, to the point that you don't perceive it as everyday, boring mindchatter when you choose to externalize it. Trust us...it's mindchatter. Another great concept I hope amuses you. There's a nice guy in there, if he just spent less time trying to capture other people's attention... My motives for posting have not yet been hit upon. But keep trying to Pin the Tail on the Donkey. Particularly as you find it amuses you. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Another Damn, Greedy, Non-Empthatetic Rich Person! Let Lynch the Basards!
We were sitting in a Manhattan living room on a spring afternoon, and Warren Buffett had a Cherry Coke in his hand as usual. But this unremarkable scene was about to take a surprising turn. Brace yourself, Buffett warned with a grin. He then described a momentous change in his thinking. Within months, he said, he would begin to give away his Berkshire Hathaway fortune, then and now worth well over $40 billion. Should you leave it all to the children? If you do, you may not be doing them a favor. But if you want to, there are sensible ways of passing on what you have without depriving the kids of a feeling of achievement. (more) Letters from Buffett As part of his plan, Warren Buffett is sending letters to each of the five foundations that will be receiving his gifts. The letters may be found on Berkshire Hathaway's Web site. (See the letters) This news was indeed stunning. Buffett, 75, has for decades said his wealth would go to philanthropy but has just as steadily indicated the handoff would be made at his death. Now he was revising the timetable. I know what I want to do, he said, and it makes sense to get going. On that spring day his plan was uncertain in some of its details; today it is essentially complete. And it is typical Buffett: rational, original, breaking the mold of how extremely rich people donate money. Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations. A dominant five-sixths of the shares will go to the world's largest philanthropic organization, the $30 billion Bill Melinda Gates Foundation, whose principals are close friends of Buffett's (a connection that began in 1991, when a mutual friend introduced Buffett and Bill Gates). The Gateses credit Buffett, says Bill, with having inspired their thinking about giving money back to society. Their foundation's activities, internationally famous, are focused on world health -- fighting such diseases as malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis -- and on improving U.S. libraries and high schools. Up to now, the two Gateses have been the only trustees of their foundation. But as his plan gets underway, Buffett will be joining them. Bill Gates says he and his wife are thrilled by that and by knowing that Buffett's money will allow the foundation to both deepen and accelerate its work. The generosity and trust Warren has shown, Gates adds, is incredible. Beginning in July and continuing every year, Buffett will give a set, annually declining number of Berkshire B shares - starting with 602,500 in 2006 and then decreasing by 5% per year - to the five foundations. The gifts to the Gates foundation will be made either by Buffett or through his estate as long as at least one of the pair -- Bill, now 50, or Melinda, 41 -- is active in it. Berkshire's price on the date of each gift will determine its dollar value. Were B shares, for example, to be $3,071 in July - that was their close on June 23 - Buffett's 2006 gift to the foundation, 500,000 shares, would be worth about $1.5 billion. With so much new money to handle, the foundation will be given two years to resize its operations. But it will then be required by the terms of Buffett's gift to annually spend the dollar amount of his contributions as well as those it is already making from its existing assets. At the moment, $1.5 billion would roughly double the foundation's yearly benefactions. But the $1.5 billion has little relevance to the value of Buffett's future gifts, since their amount will depend on the price of Berkshire's stock when they are made. If the stock rises yearly, on average, by even a modest amount - say, 6% - the gain will more than offset the annual 5% decline in the number of shares given. Under those circumstances, the value of Buffett's contributions will rise. Buffett himself thinks that will happen. Or to state that proposition more directly: He believes the price of Berkshire, and with it the dollar size of the contributions, will trend upward - perhaps over time increasing substantially. The other foundation gifts that Buffett is making will also occur annually and start in July. At Berkshire's current price, the combined 2006 total of these gifts will be $315 million. The contributions will go to foundations headed by Buffett's three children, Susan, Howard, and Peter, and to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation. This last foundation was for 40 years known simply as the Buffett Foundation and was recently renamed in honor of Buffett's late wife, Susie, who died in 2004, at 72, after a stroke. Her will bestows about $2.5 billion on the foundation, to which her husband's gifts will be added. The foundation has mainly focused on reproductive health, family planning, and pro-choice causes, and on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Counting the gifts to all five foundations, Buffett will gradually but sharply reduce his holdings of Berkshire (Charts) stock. He now owns close to 31% of the company-worth nearly $44 billion in
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vit B12 Methyl Form
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think a good test would be to take an Indian who comes from a long line of vegetarians and pair him with a westerner who claims they function well as a vegetarian and see who actually performs better in a battery of tests. Unless the westerner also comes from a long line of vegetarians the Indian may fair way better. If you think pairing one indian with one american would make a good test, good test as in valid reseaerch, then many aspects of your world views, politics, cognitive and evaluation skills suddenly have become clearer. I get where you are coming from. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ever heard of a guy called Peter Kelder..?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All we is more techniques! We know you are beyond need, Peter. But you can still speak the word without taking you out of that state. :) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ever heard of a guy called Peter Kelder..?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you're going to learn them, it's better to learn them the right way. In that way they can take a person to full Buddhahood rather quickly. Was that your experience? If you didn't do it, why not? What else could possibly divert your attention if quick attainement of full Buddhood was available? Does it include the Rainbow Body? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ever heard of a guy called Peter Kelder..?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 24, 2006, at 11:29 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: If you're going to learn them, it's better to learn them the right way. In that way they can take a person to full Buddhahood rather quickly. Was that your experience? If you didn't do it, why not? What else could possibly divert your attention if quick attainement of full Buddhood was available? Does it include the Rainbow Body? It's not my primary practice, I most often use it on retreat or for working with the breath, but yes they do help with evolution and the latter, although it's more connected with the Illusory body. So you are doing other things that are EVEN quicker in taking a person to full Buddahood (with Rainbow Body presumably)? (If not, is attaining full buddhood a moderate to low priority for you?) btw, what is quick? a couple of years? a couple of life times? a couple of yugas? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ever heard of a guy called Peter Kelder..?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 24, 2006, at 2:24 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jun 24, 2006, at 11:29 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: If you're going to learn them, it's better to learn them the right way. In that way they can take a person to full Buddhahood rather quickly. Was that your experience? If you didn't do it, why not? What else could possibly divert your attention if quick attainement of full Buddhood was available? Does it include the Rainbow Body? It's not my primary practice, I most often use it on retreat or for working with the breath, but yes they do help with evolution and the latter, although it's more connected with the Illusory body. So you are doing other things that are EVEN quicker in taking a person to full Buddahood (with Rainbow Body presumably)? Yes. (If not, is attaining full buddhood a moderate to low priority for you?) No. btw, what is quick? a couple of years? a couple of life times? a couple of yugas? A lifetime or two. ok thanks. Its clearer now. I figured quick was a couple of years. Thus it was hard to beleive that these methods had not created many buddhas if the assertion is true. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beware the Yoga Demon! The Christian Rights fear of self-realization and sp
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: RELIGION Beware the Yoga Demon! The Christian Right's fear of self- realization and spirituality By Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D. Online Journal Contributing Writer Jun 22, 2006, 00:39 They're still at it. Those paranoid Christian fundamentalists are again attacking yoga. This is not the first time they've done so. On September 6, 2005, the Christian news service Agape Press carried an article titled School Yoga Fitness Programs May Be Unhealthy Alternative, Author Warns. The reason that hatha yoga programs may indeed be unhealthy for Americans is not the reasons given by the author. The reason is that if yoga is NOT taught or practised properly it can lead to back problems and other maladies. Not to mention that Yog is not asanas, it is meditation. The asanas are the prep for sitting in meditation. And it is Yog not Yo-gah. Millions mispronounce it. Indians pronounce it Yog. Eight limbs of YOG. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's why a progressive income tax is a good thing. It is an disincentive to accumulating excessive wealth. It is better to have more millionaires than any billionaires. You would allow people to accumulate an estate worth up to $12 million and then the progressive tax kicks in. It's not there to make money for the government. Anyone who thinks they need more than $12 million has to be sick. (Just watch the resident righties -- rich wannabes but never-gonna-bees -- whine at this). Well I am not a resident rightie, but your conception of a progressive income tax is fine, but has nothing to do with the progressive income tax thats in place. Or the much more progressive one of the pre-80's. A problem with high marginal rates -- near 70% in pre-80's, is people spend an inordinate amount of time trying to shelter it or make it tax deductable via clever means -- elaborate business trips and meals, etc. Very unproductive energy for them and society. But understandable when sheltering $1000 saves you $700. And such systems lead to hugely complex tax codes, and an army of tax accountants -- all unproductive overhead on society. And such complex tax codes increases corruption in government where special interests are willing to pay a lot to get special tax breaks. And lots of research does indicate the strong correlation of low(er) marginal tax rates with economic growth. A flat tax (some say 17% would do it) with no or few deductions, starting at incomes over $30-50,000, (even a negative income taxfor incomes below say $15,000) would eliminate all the inefficiencies, overheads and drags on society from excessive tax accountants, searching for tax shelters and deductions, poor economic choices for tax reasons, etc. And would trigger greater economic growth -- which is the engine for productivity increases, and that being the driver for wage rate increases at all levels. Unless you are mistakenly saying income when you mean estate tax -- and want to tax estates above 12 million. A fair proposal in my view -- particularly if there are 3-5 kids, 20 grand kids etc. But then again, few with estates above 12 million pay much estate tax -- its all in sheletered trusts. I suggest a flat tax per above, with an estate tax kicking in at $10-20 million. Just watch the resident ultra-leftists -- poor wannabes but never-gonna-bees, whine at this :) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: That's why a progressive income tax is a good thing. It is an disincentive to accumulating excessive wealth. It is better to have more millionaires than any billionaires. You would allow people to accumulate an estate worth up to $12 million and then the progressive tax kicks in. It's not there to make money for the government. Anyone who thinks they need more than $12 million has to be sick. (Just watch the resident righties -- rich wannabes but never-gonna-bees -- whine at this). Well I am not a resident rightie, but your conception of a progressive income tax is fine, but has nothing to do with the progressive income tax thats in place. Or the much more progressive one of the pre-80's. A problem with high marginal rates -- near 70% in pre-80's, is people spend an inordinate amount of time trying to shelter it or make it tax deductable via clever means -- elaborate business trips and meals, etc. Very unproductive energy for them and society. But understandable when sheltering $1000 saves you $700. And such systems lead to hugely complex tax codes, and an army of tax accountants -- all unproductive overhead on society. And such complex tax codes increases corruption in government where special interests are willing to pay a lot to get special tax breaks. And lots of research does indicate the strong correlation of low(er) marginal tax rates with economic growth. A flat tax (some say 17% would do it) with no or few deductions, starting at incomes over $30-50,000, (even a negative income taxfor incomes below say $15,000) would eliminate all the inefficiencies, overheads and drags on society from excessive tax accountants, searching for tax shelters and deductions, poor economic choices for tax reasons, etc. And would trigger greater economic growth -- which is the engine for productivity increases, and that being the driver for wage rate increases at all levels. Unless you are mistakenly saying income when you mean estate tax -- and want to tax estates above 12 million. A fair proposal in my view -- particularly if there are 3-5 kids, 20 grand kids etc. But then again, few with estates above 12 million pay much estate tax -- its all in sheletered trusts. I suggest a flat tax per above, with an estate tax kicking in at $10-20 million. Just watch the resident ultra-leftists -- poor wannabes but never-gonna-bees, whine at this :) The above does not address your greed issue. I am sympathetic to that. Yet strong progressive taxation of the pre-80's did not put much of a dent in that. Greed is not a trait well addressed by the tax code. Its an ethic, set of values, and ethos. Thats what needs to be changed. There has always been strong tradition of giving large fortunes to charitable causes. Increasing a lot of PC and net fortunes appear headed that way. Strengthening that impulse in society is a good thing. Public esteem and fame based on charitable works rather than accumulations, houses, etc, needs to be nurtured. Its a matter of social and collective values. I dream of a day when kids grow up wanting to make billions so they can make a transform world health, nutrition, shelter, education, spirituality, the arts, etc. (Some already do). I dread the day if/when all income and estates are capped at some maximum with the largess going to feed a corrupt political system. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Progressive and Flat Taxes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: A flat tax (some say 17% would do it) with no or few deductions, starting at incomes over $30-50,000, (even a negative income taxfor incomes below say $15,000) would eliminate all the inefficiencies, overheads and drags on society from excessive tax accountants, searching for tax shelters and deductions, poor economic choices for tax reasons, etc. And would trigger greater economic growth -- which is the engine for productivity increases, and that being the driver for wage rate increases at all levels. Unless you are mistakenly saying income when you mean estate tax and want to tax estates above 12 million. A fair proposal in my view -- particularly if there are 3-5 kids, 20 grand kids etc. But then again, few with estates above 12 million pay much estate tax -- its all in sheletered trusts. I suggest a flat tax per above, with an estate tax kicking in at $10-20 million. Just watch the resident ultra-leftists -- poor wannabes but never-gonna-bees, whine at this :) This leftist has absolutely no problem with the suggestion. I'd make the estate tax level much lower, but other than that, a flat tax with no deductions is the way to go. Ok, my final offer: :) a 17% flat estate tax above five million. But you hafta also support my 15 points towards real democracy -- yesterdays rant (IRV, etc.) Its a package deal :) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Electronic mantra chanting machine
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 6/21/06 10:43 AM, nablus108 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And listening to mantras starting with OM is OK with you ? I use a mantra with OM in it. Have been for several years. Material and spiritual well-being have improved significantly during this period. Yeah, but what about those purple and gold horns growing out of your spine? :) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SSRS: 20 million?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 6/21/06 7:03 AM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The WIE has details provided by him and his people. Where's the independent articles? One of Amma¹s senior swamis told me that SSRS made a big show of doing a lot of tsunami disaster relief in Sri Lanka, but when Amma¹s crew got there to do some actual work, officials complained to them that the SSRS group had apparently just been seeking publicity, and hadn¹t actually done anything. I think selfless, simple, non-PR-focussed, group service projects by any spriritually oriented group, are a great way to create word-or-mouth and good buzz about a particular program. Ironically, when I was more directly involved with AoL in the mid 90's, I used to recommend that -- instead of more direct promotion that SSRS was suggesting at that paticualar time (paraphrasing the program is the highest need of the world today, thus promoting it is the highest seva. Better to promote AoL as seva than other things). That sounded SO familiar and was part of my distncing process from AoL (Though I still think highly of SSRS as a teacher, mentor, friend and presence.) I was quite tired of the TM proselytizing ethos in the TMO, and particularly as a TM teacher. And this mid-90's directive does not seem to be universal in AoL. Since then, I have seen some community public AoL projects. And I know of some who do a lot of good NGO work in thrid world countries under auspiciouses of AoL -- but focus on the seva. And they have (had .. not sure of current status) prison program, childrens programs in India, etc. So for AoL its a mixed bag. On a spectrum, perhaps the TMO is on one end, Amma's group on the other, and AoL somewhere in the middle as far as selfless community group projects. Though I would guess even Amma's group is not perfect in this regard -- I have heard some PR-focus and oddities there too. So your comments about AoL's recent PR focuss don't surprise me. Particularly given the trend I have viewed, from afar, in the past 10 years, that AoL has more and more bliss-ninnies aka mood-maker types -- who are REALLY devoted to this highest teaching and Best Master, etc. Its about the Big Thing I am involved in and less the practice and seva. In such an environment, the ends begin to justify the means. PR trumps substance in seva projects. Its too bad. The phenomenon occurs in mainstream religions. The catholic church, and evangelicals, have done a lot of great seva type things. But often with strong strings attached. It appears that PR/conversion-focussed seva is a downer and often backfires -- regardless of the organization. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SSRS: 20 million?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablus108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 6/20/06 7:09:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sparaig@ writes: So SSRS only uses meditation teachers who have pledged to only teach TM under the auspices of the TMO and he reveres MMY has his teacher? Something off here. Maybe not, he doesn't call it Transcendental Meditation. ...then we are satisfied... Basically what this means is that these TM-teachers that Ravi Shankar has enlisted are liers, pretending to represent the Holy Tradition. But what they are doing is feeding their egos and wallets. Not very different from the so-called independents. There appers to be a core of anger in your posts -- perhaps not -- appearances can b e deceiving. Regardless, AFAIK, all $250 of the AoL fee goes to the organization. The teachers all teach for free. Out of the joy of teaching. And passing on something good to others. So its not feeding their wallets. Why you also feel it is feeding thier egos is also a mystery. My impression of meeting a lot of AoL teachers is that its not an ego thing at all. There is not the sharp TMO class hierarchy status thing (particularly prevalent prior to citizen sidhas) of being a teacher. They simply like teaching a program that helps people. Who doesn't? Are you basing your ego comments on your having met and worked with 20-50 + AoL teachers? Have you met any? If not, then it would appear that your comments are not based on observed reality, but something in your head. Perhaps good to figure out what that is. Or, if it leads to greater happiness to continue to have that rattling around inside, go for it. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Your favorite religious organization? Make a donation at Network for Good. http://us.click.yahoo.com/EOl1HB/LPaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Part of the predetermined Grand Plan or the result of Free Will?
Per subject, are those the only two alternatives that occur to you? Or is it a hidden yet profound lesson on the shallowness of strawmen thinking? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly: Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a tautology. Tautology has at least three distinct meanings: * Tautology (logic), a statement true by virtue of its logical form. * Tautology (rhetoric), undesirable use of redundant language that adds no information. * Truism, an assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a discussion. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, descriptions of Brahman, and the Turing test. (no way to tell!!)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: This is why I don't understand why some folks are so thrown by the idea of determinism. If determinism were true, it would make absolutely no difference. Determinism perhaps may not be the best word to describe the absence of deep and fundamental free will. Some unecessarily take an extreme i) reductionist and ii) static projectionist view of the word determinism, neither of which is necessary to describe the natural state of the absence of deep and fundamental free will. Extreme reductionism back to first causes and to quantum physical states, while it may be entertaining specualation, is not necessary to understand, get and know the absence of deep and fundamental free will. And this absence does not imply extreme static projectionism -- that is, it does not require an assumption that all final states are already determined, as in set in concrete and can be accurately projected or predicted to and end-state from today. In contrast to the above, in my view, the absence of deep and fundamental free will simply means that current decisions can be traced to prior causes. It is not necessary to explicitly link this back to the Big Bang or QM. Two more stumbling points for some are is the views i) that past causes are static -- in contrast to the more abundant situation of being dynamic, learning processes, and iii) misunderstanding or misappropriating the who that constitutes the doer. Per i), the prior causes to which current decisions can be traced can involve many dynamic loops of learned behaviors. Including the behavior to learn itself. Learning has provided ample rewards in the past such that the motivation to learn has been deeply learned. Learning involves experimentation, laying out options, intellectual processes to optimize ones values (which are learned from experience over time), evaluation of outcomes etc. For example, a simple example, too simple -- in that some can always attribute other factors. However, I suggest that those other factors have a prior cause also -- if one digs deeply enough. Example: I eat xyz today due to many past causes -- its what I bought yesterday (prior cause), it can be fixed in the time I have -- per schedule (prior cause), knowledge that if I don't eat I get weaker / tired (prior cause), knowledge that this particular food tastes good (prior cause), knowledge of the nutritional value of this food (prior cause) etc. The decision to cook and eat xyz does not involve free will -- it involves the interaction of learned behavior, prior knowledge, (attempted) optimization of values to maximize satisfaction, etc. The right choice for this moment just unfolds. Per ii), who is the doer. If (individual) identity exists, if that idenfification process identifies with the intellect in the above example and processes, sure, there is a sense I am deciding. However, at some point in spiritual unfoldment, the (individual) identification process simmers down, and among other things, the intellect realizes it is not IT. And that -- the intellect -- works according to its structure (past causes), energies (past causes), past experience (past causes), and learned effective huristics and rules (past causes). What I have for lunch today, as with all my daily actions, can be traced to past causes -- which include many complex, dynamic processes, including two very strong ones -- adaptation and learning. To understand and know this view, there is not any need to: i) reduce it to quantum level, ii) reduce it to First Causes (for example, Big Bang), or to project these past causes to some ultimate, singular end state. As to those that claim that this type of absence of free will results in i) lack of responsibily for ones actions, or ii) lethargic who cares nilhism, are simply missing the points above, and are viewing past causes, learned and optimizing behaviors processes and patterns in a very limited way -- as static and of low dimentionality. --- An Observation - (Based on observed past behavior of some, some will react strongly to this view, and criticize it, not based on the actual experience / model suggested, but from their understandings of some past, near-unrelated concept they have regarding free-will (same name, different thing), that bothers them, pushes their buttons. Their responses will be determined by theses past causes (old concepts, faulty reading abilities, faulty reasoning, etc) and their responses will be be predictably off the point -- and off into their own universes where they fight past dragons that still haunt them. Or, the learing loop dynamic, and the learned tendency to favor cognitive accuracy -- both always present -- may take dominance this time around, and they may begin to assimilate a different view, different from the dragon that they have been dealing with for some time. In
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 20, 2006, at 12:57 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly: Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a tautology. Tautology has at least three distinct meanings: * Tautology (logic), a statement true by virtue of its logical form. * Tautology (rhetoric), undesirable use of redundant language that adds no information. * Truism, an assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a discussion. Unfortunately your last post was not meant to happen. Sorry. ;-) While I find your comment funny, it brings up a deeper point in the free will discssion. Meant to happen, meant to be implies or are at least parallel to assumptions revolving around: A) a Grand or Divine Plan B) a singular determined, fixed, static end-state for the universe -- that is, the last frame of the film has already been writtne, casted and filmed. C) a quite anthropormorphic view of God or Nature as an intesely micro-managing bureaucrat, manageing against a firm, irrevocable, unchangeable '10 Billion Year Plan' D) a singualar correct action in any circumstance. In contrast, MMY has described, echoing many others, the nature of life, the nature of the universe, the characteristics of Nature, the hard-wired rules of the universe, are: 1) to change towards more complex states (evolve) 2) to seek greater happiness A-D are not at all necessary for 1-2. 1-2 imply everything is self-optimizing to seek greater happiness as it defines it, and as it understands how to get there. Seeking happiness is a self-correcting (adaptive and learning) heuristic of everything in life -- from bugs to humans to whatever. Consequently: To say some specific thing should or was supposed to happen in this context is ludicrious. Things happen, as everything tests the limits and boundaries of their existence to gain greater happiness. And everything learns in the process. To say some specific thing was against the laws of nature in this context is ludicrious. Things happen, as everything tests the limits and boundaries of their existence to gain greater happiness. There are limits on understanding i) what yields greater happiness in the short vs long run, and ii) how to achieve such. But these are limitations, progressively overcome with adaptive learning at every step. To say some specific thing should have happened because it happened or more boldly something is perfect because 'it happened' is a bit of a tautology, but consistent with the breader view that 'everything is good' because things happen, as everything tests the limits and boundaries of their existence to gain greater happiness. Any limitations are progressively overcome with adaptive learning at every step. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will, you only think you have it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: In discussing this with Tom Traynor, he wrapped it up perfectly: Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. Though meaningful perhaps via some other understandings or knowledge, by itself, the quote is hard to distinguish from a tautology. And then there's always this old chestnut: Q: Maharishi, if everything is perfect just as it is, why are we working so hard to change things? A: That too is perfect just as it is. While that too is a tautology as it stands, in a broader context it is a valuable insight and knowledge. And if truely understood, explains why absolute no-free will due to all decisions being based on past causes is no excuse for dropping responsibility for actions. Per responsibility, we all deeply learning behaviors of learning, adaptation and optimizating values (projected outcomes) of any action to derive maximum happiness. And part of learning behaviors include learning that actions have consequences that can either increase or decrease happiness. Taking responsibility is not so much the issue. Responsibility takes us. The result of actions find us. We learn from such. Do more if action yields greater happiness, do less if action yields less happiness. (Do nothing if non-action produces greatest happpiness.) And the same reasons, per above, explain why MMY's quote, if truly understood, clarifies why absolute no-free will due to all decisions being based on past causes does not cause lethargic, do nothing nililism. The latter may be a happiness strategy being tested by some, but over time it is learned that it is not as effective as other strategies, and one moves one. Who would ever say Bangalore today is a lethargic backwater due to Indian cultural beliefs that nothing can or should be done -- one should sit and totally take it as it come, all outcomes are all singularly and absolutely already mapped out. Related points in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/102232?l=1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/102235?l=1 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Wars
Quotes from FFL Observers [Commments and implied statements in brackets] Believe me nobody ever died fighting for our [their country's] freedom. Instead they fought to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. They fought the wars as pawns for the rich. The rich could give a damn about our freedom, instead just theirs to keep counting their money. When will we learn? The vast majority of them [including French in WW II it would appear] fought and died because they were told to and had so little imagination that it never occurred to them that they could say no, to conscription and to the whole stupid business of war. In other words, the 'honor the fallen dead' thang is just an extension of the German Ve ver just followink orders excuse for not owning up to their part in WWII[The French and British virtually created WWII with their intensely harsh termsdemanded in the Treaty of Versaille] . If you praise the soldiers who said YES to an insane war, and absolve them of any respon- sibility for that war because they were just being noble and doing what they were told by their bad leaders, then the people who sat by quietly and paid their taxes and *enabled* the war started by those bad leaders also share no responisibility for it. War is a kind of codependency. Every time you say YES to some leader who wants a war and agree to go fight it or agree to pay for it, you are *assisting* that leader in perpetuating war. As I said, there will always be leaders who want war; in the long run, the only thing that will stop them is people saying NO -- both to fighting the wars and to paying for them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's real easy for Americans to sit on their fat asses and criticize those countries who have actually had wars fought on their own territory. ... As far as war goes, they're [Americans] pussies. They have never had the experience of seeing what war is like first-hand, happening in your own streets and to your own loved ones, right in front of you. They think that war is what they read in newspapers and see on newsreels. If they had actually experienced the reality of past wars first-hand, they might not be so willing to start new ones. I live with people who lost every male member of their family in those first few days of World War II. They have a slightly different perspective on things than the fat-assed Americans who like to boast over a few beers how they won the war. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] War
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Country WWII deaths/100 population --- -- That should be deaths per 1000 population, of course. But do spend some time looking at the full chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country The numbers dispel a lot of silly American dick-waving about World War II and how important they were to it. Yes, the chart is instructive: US military death 407,000. French military deaths 212,000. But far beyond, that, the US committed 16 million troops to WWII, (which is 40% or France's entire 1939 population), suffered over 500,000 wounded, (beyond dead) and an almost incomprehensible amount of machines of war, all at a cost of over 2 trillion ($1990), a per capita cost of $15,000,($1990). I am generally against the US entry into WWII (certainly as it happened, probably in all circumstances) and certainly against US involvement in WWI (a European war between corrupt imperialst powers ultimately squabbling over their subjected lands). And absolutley against and sickened by French and British intensely harsh, inhumane terms at the Treaty of Versaille -- which created the seeds and foundations of WWII and which understandably came back with a boomertang force of destruction upon the European victors, particularly France and UK). Outcomes in war, as in most dynamics, are won or lost on the margin. Add 16 million soldiers and $2 trillion, one outcome unfolds. Don't add 16 million soldiers and $2 trillion, and another outcome unfolds. To state or imply that the US had inconsequental effect on the outcome of War II is the depth of silliness and ignorance. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Wars
Quotes from FFL Observers [Commments and implied statements in brackets] Believe me nobody ever died fighting for our [their country's] freedom. Instead they fought to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. They fought the wars as pawns for the rich. The rich could give a damn about our freedom, instead just theirs to keep counting their money. When will we learn? The vast majority of them [including French in WW II it would appear] fought and died because they were told to and had so little imagination that it never occurred to them that they could say no, to conscription and to the whole stupid business of war. In other words, the 'honor the fallen dead' thang is just an extension of the German Ve ver just followink orders excuse for not owning up to their part in WWII[The French and British virtually created WWII with their intensely harsh termsdemanded in the Treaty of Versaille] . If you praise the soldiers who said YES to an insane war, and absolve them of any respon- sibility for that war because they were just being noble and doing what they were told by their bad leaders, then the people who sat by quietly and paid their taxes and *enabled* the war started by those bad leaders also share no responisibility for it. War is a kind of codependency. Every time you say YES to some leader who wants a war and agree to go fight it or agree to pay for it, you are *assisting* that leader in perpetuating war. As I said, there will always be leaders who want war; in the long run, the only thing that will stop them is people saying NO -- both to fighting the wars and to paying for them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's real easy for Americans to sit on their fat asses and criticize those countries who have actually had wars fought on their own territory. ... As far as war goes, they're [Americans] pussies. They have never had the experience of seeing what war is like first-hand, happening in your own streets and to your own loved ones, right in front of you. They think that war is what they read in newspapers and see on newsreels. If they had actually experienced the reality of past wars first-hand, they might not be so willing to start new ones. I live with people who lost every male member of their family in those first few days of World War II. They have a slightly different perspective on things than the fat-assed Americans who like to boast over a few beers how they won the war. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Fw: (no subject)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/12/06 10:15:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And it's ironic, too, how many of those who would send others to fight in wars have never actually volunteered for one themselves--or even come close. Apparently it's only other people, or other people's kids, who should put their asses on the line. Sal Sal, are you saying only a President that has battle experience has the moral authority to order troops into battle?We could go a step further, maybe only a congress who's individual members each have battle experience should be able to vote on resolutions authorizing the president to send troops into harms way. It just can't work that way. We elect people with or with out that experience and give them that authority. All screening begins in the primaries. The implication (though probably not intention)of what she says goes beyond that: only those with battle experience should be allowed to vote. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for your thoughts and inputs. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: I don't think he's thought these points through very well, or at least he isn't explaining them clearly. He seems to be saying, for example, that the magical thinking of astrology was replaced by scientific knowledge of the regularity of the motions of the heavenly bodies, when in fact the omens and signs of astrology are grounded in very detailed and precise observation of that regularity. His examples could have been stronger. To me, his first two seem to fit his thesis, that science abandons mystical and occult explanations, which have not stood up well to research (or there is a lack of it), for material causes which have substantial research that show strong efficacy. Sure. I'm just taking issue with the examples he uses. On the other hand, scientific explanations and research don't *necessarily* always take the place of mystical and occult ones; in many cases they can c o-exist. It depends on the specific example. Examples? It seems to me if science is weak in a particular area, then myth and supernatural explanations will fill the vacuum. When science is strong. the latter diminish. But the mix also has to do with what level one is viewing, first causes, and whys. For example, science knows a lot about the first few seconds of the universe -- the what's and how's. That doesn't preclude the possibility of a deeper level of say a Shiva stirring, or an emergence from the navel of Brahma. If the latter serves some purpose, perhaps to define for some the why's of theuniverse, then fine. It doesn't contradict science. They are on different levels, looking at different questions. To me he is not attempting to negate the notion that there are divine forces, or even green cheese, or lepricons behind weather and disease. His underlying point I believe, is that there is no body of research that indicates these are credible explanations. But as you go on to suggest, in at least some areas, objective scientific research is the wrong tool for the job. I doubt he sees it that way; my impression is he believes if it can't be proved by science, it's essentially meaningless and not worth considering. I have not gotten that from him (yet?). If thats his view, I disagree. Some strict logical postitivists seem to hold that view. Thats a very dry view IMO. He should have used a different example than astrology, or said something along the lines of Astrology's unsubstantiated heavenly omens and signs for maladies were replaced by more reliable and substantiated diagnoses and remedies based on medical, educational, social and economic research. Yes, there are plenty of other better examples, or he could have used the astrology example as you suggest, which would have made a lot more sense. Of course, there's more to astrology than that, but in those areas, at least, he'd have had a point. That he used astrology so sloppily is, to me, a sign that he really doesn't take subjective stuff seriously enough to make a good case for dismissing it. snip I take Kurtz as a source of good ideas, but not necessarily authoritative -- particularly in areas where he has limited knowledge or experience. I said / implied that rigorous methods of naturalistic inquiry should be applied to subjective science. Let me refine that. Rigorous use of logic, reasoning, the rooting out of interpretative and cognitive errors and biases, unbiased, independent scientific and statistical methods for testing of corrleates of the subjective experience, discerning causes from correlation, relegating untested scriptural and mythical explanations and models to being 'untested hypotheses' can and should be applied to subjective sciences. This was the original but unfulfilled promise of the orginal SCI taught at Stanford in 1971. It is what a lot of current cognitive science is about. I think Kurtz would be interested in such. At least it would be a good discussion. I'm dubious that he'd be that interested, but it sure would be interesting if he'd take it on. I am more optimistic. But I have not read that much of him. At least if he go engaged in it, it wold be an interesting discussion. I like discussions with sharp knowledgable people with a different POV. They point out holes in ones own thinking. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 12:27 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: Magical thinking,, myth, art, poetry, drama, literature, dreams, are great things -- in the vast realms that science does not provide a more effective, predicable, researched and validated set of models, explanations and remedies / technologies. We have discussed this a bit before in the realm of logic. Logic has its realm. As does poetry. And I don't want a poet fixing the jet engine in the plane I am going to fly in, but I would rather hear the poet, rather have Neruda, not the mechanic, waxing on about love. One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of- seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming state's logic as magical thinking. It would also see the way-of- seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of- seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one another. Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example given would be of a river which a human would see as something to drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar (etc., etc.). The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change the chemistry and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law. (Except on Trans-Love Airlines -- which gets you THERE on time as Donovan and Jefferson Airplane sang.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we may be saying something roughly similar, except that I don't know whether you put much stock in intuition. I definitely do, although I may or may not have more limits on how far that can go. In the field of psychology and human behavior, intuition seems to be a critical tool. I don't believe that they intuit the future exactly, but I'll bet they can detect trends in behavior that have a good chance of leading somewhere predictable. If a person goes to bed drunk with a gun under their pillow every night, and is in an abusive relationship, my intuition tells me that someday, someone may get shot. Or common sense. Which is subject to a lot of cognitive biases. But this is not an area devoid of scientific inquiry. Qualified psychologists / psychiatrists could tell you the same andmuch more. With higher statistical reliability. There are many more subtle character trends I think highly empathetic people can detect no matter what their field. The thing with people like Kurtz, I suspect, is that his predisposition to dismiss astrology (and other such endeavors) has kept him from examining what *good* astrology looks like. In effect, at least partly, he's dismissing a straw man. That wouldn't surprise me. I think it is up to astrology to present a better case or show an interest in good studies. The arrogance of the position that we already know it is true so we don't have to prove it to you is a problem in many fields, some claiming to be scientific. Paul may be placing the burden of proof on others to present claims in a way that is falsifiable. Why should Paul accept astrology if no strong and valid studies have been presented? I think the rational view is to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims and hypotheses, but not to reject them outright until valid studies have indicated such. From what I have viewed, in the domain of jyotish, there are no good studies rejecting the null hypotheses, not any that fail to. Its an area good science has not touched. Frankly, I am open to it -- from subjective experience -- but would never try to convince a Kurtz that it has value. To me it has value, outside its predicitive ability (or lack there of). Like a cross-word or other puzzle, it exercises the mind in odd and different ways. Opening up new synapes. If they are not willing to present it in this manor then their sincerity is automatically questioned by many skeptics. Of course. If one wants scientific validation then let science validate it in its proven ways. (The mistake of the TMO) Some good therapist seem to blur the line with their use of intuition. I think the trick is to make sure there is a test loop to verify those intuitions and strong feelings. They might be a fantastic insight into the patient or they might be something else. I think good, experienced therapists have this down, and bad ones don't. Astrology and jyotish present some interesting, untested, but testable hypotheses. If a therapist uses such today as given, he is a charlatan. But he needs to conduct the rigorous testing and finds some if any jyotish hypotheses hold up. Good astrologers might make good therapists if they had the interest in looking at it with the constraints ethical therapists impose. They are making claims that could be tested, unlike some other areas of human experience where they have a more legitimate case about scientific testing being unsuitable. I also think a lot of therapy systems are vulnerable to this same criticism. Sam Harris likes to point out that many fields of belief like to use an appearance of science when it suits them, because the scientific method is part of our deepest intuition about what is credible. But if you live by that sword... Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comments in [brackets]. That's not intuition, that's common sense, Curtis. Intuition is that annoying thing :) you often hear women say, I just have a feeling... about something or someone that seems completely illogical at the time, but turns out [20% of the time ] to be fairly accurate at some point later. [And 80% of the time turns out to nothing.] That's intuition. [:)] Sal Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You may have two good terms for the same thing! I think of intuition as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of perceived parts. Then why not recognize it as pattern recognition -- on which there have been a lot of studies -- and not some term of nebulous and mystical connotation, mystical? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Sal, I'll have to think about what we mean by intuition. For me, years of noticing people's behaviors and patterns have sharpened my ability to have better intuition about people's future behavior. Pattern recognition. A fundamental ability of the brain. Much knowne about it. Much more to know. Why wrap it in mystical woo woo languange? I think some therapist have been noticing so many people in such detail that they do develop a more highly refined ability. A more highly refined ability of pattern recognition. As do practicioners in every field. An experienced doctor gets, recognizes patterns interns don't because he has seen many 1000's more cases. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 11:34 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of- seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming state's logic as magical thinking. It would also see the way-of- seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of- seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one another. Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example given would be of a river which a human would see as something to drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar (etc., etc.). The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change the chemistry and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law. These are part of conventional reality which are part of impure (samsaric) perception. It should be considered 'conventional valid cognition of limited impure perception'. In other words it the style of perception that can be seen by ordinary people. It explains reality based on concepts of cause and effect. Ordinary people can perceive conventional logical constructs, like physical laws, etc. They cannot perceive 'conventional valid cognition of pure sublime vision, valid cognition of the *conceptual* ultimate reality or valid cognition of the *nonconceptual* ultimate reality. These pramanas (logical approaches) are beyond cause and effect and do not necessarily adhere to the the style of cognition used by ordinary beings who perceive limited impure perception. Enlightened or sublime beings do not require objects of conceptutalization to understand, explain or manipulate deceptive reality (impure or samsraic vision). Of course to ordinary persons the description of *nonconceptual* ultimate reality seems like magical thinking and the performance of action from the level of *nonconceptual* ultimate reality seems like magic. You have quite missed the point about magical thinking. And about subjective science. In this discussion no one is suggesting that they or others don't or can't have experiences that are not currently measured or modeled by objective science -- a such as your conventional valid cognition of pure sublime vision, valid cognition of the *conceptual* ultimate reality or valid cognition of the *nonconceptual* ultimate reality -- which while not well defined, in total carves out a sense of what your point is. Nor is it suggested that the experience and description of such is magical thinking. Per Kurtz's use of the term, Magical thinking, whether involved with supernatural or paranormal beliefs, requires two preconditions. The first is an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question, and the second is the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. These two factors in conjunction allow for the development of ad hoc explanations, often relying upon an assumption that correlation demonstrates causation. For example, praying just before something good happens leads one to the belief that the positive event was caused by the prayer. While the phenomenon of experiences beyond those currently measured or modeled / predicted by science is clearly there, interpreteation of such expoeriences are open to question. actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question Kurtz's phrase, may be in play in some cases. In the absence of an obvious natural cause, some appar to be led to explanations that soothe them, calm them, make them feel good. Other explanations, which are less comforting appear to be rejected or not even seiously considered. That does not mean that the experiences are not valid, or that they are unworthy of inquiry, nor that they are magical. The discussion on subjective science revolved around a system of inquiry, validation and research that could assist in clarifying and supporting communication of experiences that are not well addressed by objective sciences. Although cognitive science, well within the domains of objective science, is already doing a lot of this. There is no reason your conventional valid cognition of pure sublime vision, valid cognition of the *conceptual* ultimate reality or valid cognition of the *nonconceptual* ultimate
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You may have two good terms for the same thing! I think of intuition as an internal ability to detect patterns and create wholes out of perceived parts. Then why not recognize it as pattern recognition -- on which there have been a lot of studies -- and not some term of nebulous and mystical connotation, mystical? Because the pattern isn't logically recognizable, at least at the time of the intuition. Nor did say or mean to imply it always is. I am referring to deep processes that are usually not conscious. I was playing with the word recognition. To be clearer, I could have said, Then why not appreiciate that it may very well be some deep sub-conscious processes of pattern recognition -- on which there have been a lot of studies -- and not fall back on some some term of nebulous and mystical connotation to explain the phenomenon? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:57 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change the chemistry and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law. By definition, someone in Unity or Brahman Consciousness can *create* reality by perception or decision. Bernoulli's Law might not function around someone in such a state if they don't want it to. Yes, precisely the point I was getting at. Essentially the person in Unity becomes the center of their mandala, with the periphery of their sphere being manifestations of their own clarity--clarity in this case being the energy of their thoughts projecting as their environment. In other words they reshape their own environment at a fundamental level. In this case laws are relative. However even to ordinary individuals physical laws are impermanent. Lets bring a couple hundred, even ten, of these guys to the lab, hook them up, and test your hypotheses. Until then ... Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:26 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: You have quite missed the point about magical thinking. And about subjective science. I'm merely replying to your brief remarks and less all this other stuff, which honestly simply does not interest me in the least. My points on magical thinking should stand on their own. It does. In mid air. You have using it in a quite different way as the discussion (without clarification --or apparently even understanding that.) Not a path for clear communications. ... Per Kurtz's use of the term, Magical thinking, whether involved with supernatural or paranormal beliefs, requires two preconditions. The first is an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question, and the second is the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. Unfortunately I have little interest in Kurtz or what he has to say. Perhaps others do. Then perhaps use terms other than his for your concept, or clarify your new meaning, in a discussion explicitly using his term. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Ten [Observations] [aka Rules] for Being Human
Ten Rules for Being Human by Cherie Carter-Scott 1. You will receive a body. You may like it or hate it, but it's yours to keep for the entire period. 2. You will learn lessons. You are enrolled in a full-time informal school called, life. 3. There are no mistakes, only lessons. Growth is a process of trial, error, and experimentation. The failed experiments are as much a part of the process as the experiments that ultimately work. 4. Lessons are repeated until they are learned. A lesson will be presented to you in various forms until you have learned it. When you have learned it, you can go on to the next lesson. 5. Learning lessons does not end. There's no part of life that doesn't contain its lessons. If you're alive, that means there are still lessons to be learned. 6. There is no better a place than here. When your there has become a here, you will simply obtain another there that will again look better than here. 7. Other people are merely mirrors of you. You cannot love or hate something about another person unless it reflects to you something you love or hate about yourself. 8. What you make of your life is up to you. You have all the tools and resources you need. What you do with them is up to you. The choice is yours. 9. Your answers lie within you. The answers to life's questions lie within you. All you need to do is look, listen, and trust. 10. You will forget all this. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Real-Time Wolrd Statistics
http://www.worldometers.info/ (wait a bit and the counters will starts moving) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Find Rhymes, Similar Sounding Words, Related Words, homophones, Shakespeare, etc
http://www.rhymezone.com/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another SBS disciple embraces radical Hindu Creationism?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not convinced that's the case in many areas. Has he ever said evolutionary theory is wrong, for example? When asked who was correct Evolutionists or Fundamentalists (god created man with no intermediate steps), he said Both are right. He takes Yuga ages as literally true. (Sort of the inverse of the Christian problem of 6000 years. Fundamentalist Hindus would hold human societies way way before the many branches of science find any evidence - direct or indirect) MMY used to hold that humans had two identical nervous systems (not to be confused with sympathetic,para-symopatheic, or two hemespheres of brain, etc. He said not to all that. Its two identical nervous systems). And thats how CC could be maintained. One in silence, the other in activity. I think the idea comes from Hindu scripture. Castes, role of women, vedic kings, Age of Rama .. all pretty Hindu fundamentalist ideas. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
We all make them. To the extent that we are aware of their existence and structure, we can avoid them in our own internal reasoning, and in communications. Whoever has more than 20 in any post, gets a gallon of woowoo juice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases Cognitive bias is distortion in the way we perceive reality (see also cognitive distortion). Some of these have been verified empirically in the field of psychology, others are considered general categories of bias. This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Decision making and behavioral biases Many of these biases are studied for how they affect belief formation and business decisions and scientific research * Bandwagon effect - the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. * Bias blind spot - the tendency not to compensate for one's own cognitive biases. * Choice-supportive bias - the tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were. * Confirmation bias - the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. * Congruence bias - the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing * Contrast effect - the enhancement or diminishment of a weight or other measurement when compared with recently observed contrasting object. * Disconfirmation bias - the tendency for people to extend critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior beliefs and accept uncritically information that is congruent with their prior beliefs. * Endowment effect - the tendency for people to value something more as soon as they own it. * Focusing effect - prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome. * Hyperbolic discounting - the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, the closer to the present both payoffs are. * Illusion of control - the tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes which they clearly cannot. * Impact bias - the tendency for people to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states. * Information bias - the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action * Loss aversion - the tendency for people to strongly prefer avoiding losses over acquiring gains (see also sunk cost effects) * Neglect of Probability - the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty. * Mere exposure effect - the tendency for people to express undue liking for things merely because they are familiar with them. * Color psychology - the tendency for cultural symbolism of certain colors to affect affective reasoning. * Omission Bias - The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral than equally harmful omissions (inactions.) * Outcome Bias - the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made. * Planning fallacy - the tendency to underestimate task-completion times. * Post-purchase rationalization - the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was good value. * Pseudocertainty effect - the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes. * Rosy retrospection - the tendency to rate past events more positively than they had actually rated them when the event occurred. * Selective perception - the tendency for expectations to affect perception. * Status quo bias - the tendency for people to like things to stay relatively the same. * Von Restorff effect - the tendency for an item that stands out like a sore thumb to be more likely to be remembered than other items. * Zeigarnik effect - the tendency for people to remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed ones. * Zero-risk bias - preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk. Biases in probability and belief Many of these biases are often studied for how they affect business and economic decisions and how they affect experimental research. * Affective forecasting Affective forecasting is the forecasting of one's affect (emotional state) in the future. This kind of prediction is affected by various kinds of cognitive biases, i.e. systematic errors of thought. Daniel Gilbert of the department of social psychology at Harvard University and other researchers in the field, such as Timothy Wilson of the University of Virginia and George Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon University, have studied those cognitive biases and given them names like empathy gap and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
Did your insight occur to you before you read the post -- or after actually reading it? Hoping its the latter, perhaps you can provide some examples of specific cognitive biases and logical fallacies that that you have found in your own personal experience that have helped you to validate your perceptions and the interpretations of your subjective experiences -- and thus allowing you to deal even more effectively with the reality of Here And Now. I have found just the opposite in my life. I find cognitive biases and logical fallacies to dim and distort what IS. By becoming aware of the existence and structure of cognitive biases and logical fallacies I find I appreicate and live what IS more fully, right NOW. And I want to thank you for your writings. They are a virtual paradise of examples of cognitive biases and logical fallacies -- a playground to sharpen anybody's wits. That such keep you grounded in what IS, right now -- well only attests to the glory of creation -- that opposite practices can result in the same fruit. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: We all make them. To the extent that we are aware of their existence and structure, we can avoid them in our own internal reasoning, and in communications. Whoever has more than 20 in any post, gets a gallon of woowoo juice. Just as a question, has it never occurred to you that each of these 'categories' below is just the rational mind's way of refusing to believe its own subjective experience, and thus its way of refusing to deal with the reality of Here And Now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases Cognitive bias is distortion in the way we perceive reality (see also cognitive distortion). Some of these have been verified empirically in the field of psychology, others are considered general categories of bias. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
No, I have not read that one. It looks good. I think cognitve biases and logical fallacies are the cornorstones to magical thinking. (I appreciate your recent cites and posts on such.) And magical interpretations -- whether of experiences, scriptures or current events. Magical thinking (MT) takes one to the opposite cornor of What Is. MT may bring some feel-good comfort to the soul, and be the fuel for dreamers, but ultimately its illusion and delusion. In my reading / interpretation (we all make interpretations) of various hindu-related scriptures, a sharp intellect and the ability to finely discriminate are cited valuable tools in uncovering what is real and what is unreal. Discrimination of what is Real and Unreal. Discrimination between Buddhi and Purusha and all. Knowing the existence and structure of cognitve biases and logical fallacies, being able to readily indentify them and avoid them are part of that sharpening process. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent post. Are you hip to Gilovitch's book: How We Know What isn't So, The fallibility of human reason in everyday life? He studies human cognitive error at Cornell. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0029117062/sr=8-1/qid=1149893839/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4458199-6191348?%5Fencoding=UTF8 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: We all make them. To the extent that we are aware of their existence and structure, we can avoid them in our own internal reasoning, and in communications. Whoever has more than 20 in any post, gets a gallon of woowoo juice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases Cognitive bias is distortion in the way we perceive reality (see also cognitive distortion). Some of these have been verified empirically in the field of psychology, others are considered general categories of bias. This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Decision making and behavioral biases Many of these biases are studied for how they affect belief formation and business decisions and scientific research * Bandwagon effect - the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. * Bias blind spot - the tendency not to compensate for one's own cognitive biases. * Choice-supportive bias - the tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were. * Confirmation bias - the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. * Congruence bias - the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing * Contrast effect - the enhancement or diminishment of a weight or other measurement when compared with recently observed contrasting object. * Disconfirmation bias - the tendency for people to extend critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior beliefs and accept uncritically information that is congruent with their prior beliefs. * Endowment effect - the tendency for people to value something more as soon as they own it. * Focusing effect - prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome. * Hyperbolic discounting - the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, the closer to the present both payoffs are. * Illusion of control - the tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes which they clearly cannot. * Impact bias - the tendency for people to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states. * Information bias - the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action * Loss aversion - the tendency for people to strongly prefer avoiding losses over acquiring gains (see also sunk cost effects) * Neglect of Probability - the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty. * Mere exposure effect - the tendency for people to express undue liking for things merely because they are familiar with them. * Color psychology - the tendency for cultural symbolism of certain colors to affect affective reasoning. * Omission Bias - The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral than equally harmful omissions (inactions.) * Outcome Bias - the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made. * Planning fallacy - the tendency to underestimate task-completion times. * Post-purchase rationalization - the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument
[FairfieldLife] Re: mounting concerns about TM org in Kansas
And may we stay clear of the weewee. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: May the woowoo be with you? Hmmm... Sal On Jun 9, 2006, at 4:57 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: Woo woo really encapulates the feeling that many of us have for the Force (in a Starwars-ian sense that we really feel) about this whole incarnational thang. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
Curtis, I agree with the general point that using words in discussions with others that have a perjorative connonation -- to them -- is not usually helpful to the tone and fruitfulness of the discussion. Often this occurs when there is not a common understanding of meaning. Reading your recent posts /cites from Kurtz helped me sharpen up my definition of magical thinking -- as I hope, perhaps naievly (that they read it), it has for others And I don't think the term is necessarily pejoritive when understood. Some ascribe to its merits and value, others do not. Its becomes a simple statement of fact about someones mode of inquiry for one who has an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question, ... the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. ... These two factors in conjunction allow for the development of ad hoc explanations, often relying upon an assumption that correlation demonstrates causation. ... This magical thinking is certainly irrational, in that it deliberately bases conclusions upon a clear lack of demonstrable evidence and without regard for logical coherence or consistency. ... but why are people tempted to accept these stories? The explanation is twofold - first our innate creativity, and second our penchant for seeking patterns. Together, they can lead people to false beliefs. (Kurtz) There are those on this list that openly proclaim, or demonstrate a strong belief in via, their writings that: 1) correlation demonstrates causation 2) in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an unknown and un-natural cause 3) personal experience is the highest knowledge and should be left pure, unexamined and undiluted with issues such as multiple possible interpretations of personal experience, scientific testing of relvant paramters associated with the experience, examination of potential perceptual and cognitive biases in recalling, describing the experience, logical inconsistencies in experiential attributes, actions, etc. 4) being immersed in biased cognition and logical traps are useful in discerning what is Real and what is Unreal -- and an aid to Being Here Now. 5) Paradox is in everything, thus logical consistency in any realm is impossible 6) stangers' inner states and motives can be clearly discerned from some select sample of their writing, 7) Scripture is literally true, regardless of logic, scientific evidence, and alternative views of interpretation (e.g., allegorical vs literal) 8) etc. All of these are characteristics of magical thinking and magical belief systems, IMO. Perhaps, if some object to the name magical thinking, we can call it Type A thinking. And rational, logical, conistent, fact-based, causal, bias-minimized inquiry, thinking, belief systems and findings -- in domains where they are applicable -- as Type B thinking. But regardless of names, people tend to cluser around these two poles -- with some variations of course. I made the point earlier that cognitve biases and logical fallacies are a cornorstone of magical thinking, or as I have termed it, Type A thinking. This idea needs more development, but seems resonate with John Schumaker, as quoted by Kurtz, Humans tend to corrupt their visions of reality, in order to survive in a world that they cannot fully comprehend. That is Type A's may be quite happy with cognitve biases and logical fallacies if it is more soothing and comfortable than facing What IS, Now. Kurtz goes on, It is only in recent human history that the species has gradually been able to overcome mythological explanations. Philosophy and metaphysics emerged, attempting to account for the world of change and flux in terms of rational explanations; modern science succeeded where pure speculation failed, by using powerful cognitive methods of experimental verification and mathematical inference. What had been shrouded in mystery was now explicable in terms of natural causes. Diseases did not have Satanic origins, but natural explanations and cures. The weather could be interpreted, not as a product of divine wrath or favor, but in meteorological terms. Nature could be accounted for by locating the natural causes of phenomena. Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by the regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science abandons occult for material causes. All of these schrouds could be viewed broadly as cognitve biases and errors. And they have been dismantled in part by strong logical and reasoning. Kurtz adds, Thus there has been a continuous retreat of magical thinking under the onslaught of cognitive inquiry. The same methods of inquiry used so successfully in the natural sciences, were extended to biology and the social sciences. Science thus continues to make progress by using rigorous methods of naturalistic inquiry. And they can and should be applied to subjective sciences -- the realms of personal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
Thanks for your thoughts and inputs. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: I don't think he's thought these points through very well, or at least he isn't explaining them clearly. He seems to be saying, for example, that the magical thinking of astrology was replaced by scientific knowledge of the regularity of the motions of the heavenly bodies, when in fact the omens and signs of astrology are grounded in very detailed and precise observation of that regularity. His examples could have been stronger. To me, his first two seem to fit his thesis, that science abandons mystical and occult explanations, which have not stood up well to research (or there is a lack of it), for material causes which have substantial research that show strong efficacy. To me he is not attempting to negate the notion that there are divine forces, or even green cheese, or lepricons behind weather and disease. His underlying point I believe, is that there is no body of research that indicates these are credible explanations. The astrology example is off as you noted. What had been shrouded in mystery was now explicable in terms of natural causes. Diseases did not have Satanic origins, but natural explanations and cures. The weather could be interpreted, not as a product of divine wrath or favor, but in meteorological terms. Nature could be accounted for by locating the natural causes of phenomena. He should have used a different example than astrology, or said something along the lines of Astrology's unsubstantiated heavenly omens and signs for maladies were replaced by more reliable and substantiated diagnoses and remedies based on medical, educational, social and economic research. Kurtz adds, Thus there has been a continuous retreat of magical thinking under the onslaught of cognitive inquiry. The same methods of inquiry used so successfully in the natural sciences, were extended to biology and the social sciences. Science thus continues to make progress by using rigorous methods of naturalistic inquiry. And they can and should be applied to subjective sciences I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would. I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly limited. I take Kurtz as a source of good ideas, but not necessarily authoritative -- particularly in areas where he has limited knowledge or experience. I said / implied that rigorous methods of naturalistic inquiry should be applied to subjective science. Let me refine that. Rigorous use of logic, reasoning, the rooting out of interpretative and cognitive errors and biases, unbiased, independent scientific and statistical methods for testing of corrleates of the subjective experience, discerning causes from correlation, relegating untested scriptural and mythical explanations and models to being 'untested hypotheses' can and should be applied to subjective sciences. This was the original but unfulfilled promise of the orginal SCI taught at Stanford in 1971. It is what a lot of current cognitive science is about. I think Kurtz would be interested in such. At least it would be a good discussion. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was interested in these points but I can't figure out what I think yet: And they can and should be applied to subjective sciences I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would. You might enjoy Ken Wilber's discussion of subjective science in his book Eye to Eye. (It's one of his older works, but it holds up very well, I think.) He makes the case for the basic principles of the scientific method being applicable to the exploration of subjective experience--not in terms of measuring physiological correlates, a la TM, but purely on a subjective level. He's quite rigorous about it. I'd love to hear Kurtz's response. I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly limited I'm finding it hard to nail down my own reaction, and I don't have the time now to spend trying to analyze it. It's in the general area of his apparent feeling that science somehow trumps magical thinking, that the two can't coexist, and I just think that's incorrect. Be interested to hear anything you come up with. Magical thinking,, myth, art, poetry, drama, literature, dreams, are great things -- in the vast realms that science does not provide a more effective, predicable, researched and validated set of models, explanations and remedies / technologies. We have discussed this a bit before in the realm of logic. Logic has its realm. As does poetry. And I don't want a poet fixing the jet engine in the plane I am going to fly in, but I would rather hear the poet, rather have Neruda, not the mechanic, waxing on about love. I science somehow trumps magical thinking, that the two can't coexist, and I just think that's incorrect. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cat Killings, was: Kumbaya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 6/6/06 9:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/5/06 9:48:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I thought his equating spiritual ganja with male pedophilia was sick. But Killing kitties can be fun. is so say over the top sick its hard to fathom. Hard to want to interact with someone with that POV. Umm, I could be wrong but I think Shemp is pulling your chains. LOL Good to know. Perhaps Shemp is dealing with his personal chain issues. I began to suspect that after he started praising DDT. No thats for real I believe. DDT is a standard retort of the head-in-the-sand global climate change crowd. But thats hardly an excuse. What next, will he make what he feels are really funny chain-pulling remarks about genocide, rape, lynching blacks and pedophilia? Along with his continual stream of uninformed, don't want to be informed, knuckle-head, never read anything about global climate change, vacuuous posts. Whew! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Murphy's Laws is now available
I earlier read some the excerpts for which you provided links. I liked it. You seem to have well distilled some life experiences. Publishing question: Will you be making it available on Amazon? If so, how does that work? Do you supply them with x copies? Or do they get books from Lulu -- as orders come in? Or simply drop-ship from LuLu? Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ashelkent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My book, Murphy's Laws of the Inner Life, is now available for purchase. Most of the members of FFL should find this book interesting as it has to do with my experiences in the TM movement, as well as other paths and the double life that doing both of these entails. I think Murphy's Laws offers readers three things: 1. Entertaining stories for those who enjoy spiritual adventures. 2. The laws themselves, which are not put forth as absolute truths but as personal truths, which might stimulate readers to think about what is really true for them. 3. A model and a technique for others who wish to use writing as a means of spiritual unfoldment. Many of us have reached an age when it is natural to reflect on what our lives have meant and what is really true for us based on our experience. I think the technique that I have stumbled across is excellent for this. I give details on how to use it in my introduction. Murphy's Laws can be ordered from lulu.com at http://www.lulu.com/ content/255081 or from my Web site which will redirect you to Lulu: http:// dawnhawk.com . At either site you can also read the back cover material and the first few chapters to help you decide if this is a book that you would enjoy. If you have any friends (or mailing lists) who you think might enjoy such a book, I would be extremely grateful if you would forward this information to them. I am depending on word of mouth (and internet) to get the word out. Michael Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Rick
oh sal, you aren't egotistical. :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Probably because he fits in so well with the rest of us... Sal On Jun 6, 2006, at 12:16 PM, feste37 wrote: You seem like a rude, egotistical old bore. Why don't you just go away? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cat Killings, was: Kumbaya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: Actually, when you make comments like you did about that U of C professor from that column that I posted, I am led to believe that you are of the same intolerant ilk that the columnist was talking about. So I'm not really interested in dialoguing with you. No more vacuuous posts? Any more benefits? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Murphy's Laws is now available
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ashelkent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: Lulu has three distribution plans: 1. the one I'm using now. Free. Anyone can order from Lulu. I can order books at production cost to distribute locally. I get paid royalties monthly by PayPal. 2. Basic Distribution: $35. You get an ISBN#, a listing in Books in Print, and a listing on Amazon Marketplace. Anyone can sell books on Marketplace. Orders are fulfilled by Lulu and Amazon takes a 25% cut. This takes away most of the my profit. Not an attractive option. 3. Global distribution. $130. Listing in Ingram (largest book distributer) and Amazon. I believe orders are fulfilled though Ingram. You can upgrade to wider distribution plans as your circumstances warrant. For now I am sticking with the free plan. I will put some book in 21st century book store and maybe Revelations. This plan gives me the highest profit for my promotion work. If it were to start selling well I would upgrade to #3 probably. Michael Thanks. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Condy's solitary life?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/5/06 3:31:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...pretending all the while that it wasn't about sex. No, it was payback for Richard Nixon and Clarence Thomas. There is truth here as well. Congrats. You may be the first person ever to include Richard Nixon, Clarence Thomas and truth in one thought. (Did it cause a headache?) :) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tantric Sexual Practices (was Urdhva-retas?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 1:15 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: So what is yours (and Bhairitu's) take on MMY and other teachers reported sexual encounters, with regards to tantra? Do you feel there was some reasonable probability, or not, that there was some tantric practice type use of sexual energy involved? In M's case there is no indication that there was any tantric practice involved and were there indications there were not? I am getting at, how much does anyone but the girls know about what happened behind closed door. And (this is not an apologetic comment, rather exploratory) could M have been doing stuff the girls were not aware of? That is, tantra from his side, regular sex from theirs? nor that M. even practices such methods. Indeed his emphasis has always been on Veda rather than tantra. So I'd give it zero probablility in this case. But I thought you have been saying a lot of his methods are tantric, not vedic, regardless of what he calls them. And aren't there indications that SBS practiced things tantric? Is Sri Vidyha tantric? Can a student get it (things tantric) via transmission? Before or after the master drops his mortal coil? Did Tat Walla Baba practice tantra? M was close to him. Muktananda is something entirely different--he appears to have mastered Vajroli or some similar technique. That's not to justify the using of young women as unwitting participants in your sexual practice as a good thing, but merely to point out what he was probably involved in. He most likely needed these methods to be able to continue iving shaktipat to groups of people (something rather untraditional in and of itself). Swami Rama, although a great adept in Inner Tantra, appears to not have been using it for practice either, but for satisfaction, control and release. appears is an interesting word. Appears to whom? (Same questions as for M. above.) Also, a tantric may engage in sex to detatch him/herself from it, to condition identifications to diety and not body. Assuming we had videos, would the latter be apparent and not sex for for satisfaction, control and release? And who watched? That is, to whom was his activity in bed manifest? Kalu Rinpoche does appear to have actually chosen a mudra, a sexual consort, but the women he chose seems to have confused that with a normal romantic relationship (it is not). It was to be the culmination of his sadhana. Appears again. Could all that simply be a front for raw sensual sex? If you saw MDG OR (NOT AND) Bhairu having sex (I am just training your mind to not be conditioned to environment, thoughts, like the cemetary thing, etc. :)) , would you assume either is engaged in raw sensual sex with their female partners -- with a tantric veneer for appearances? Or, the opposite, that is engaged in a deep sadhana? That is, do appaearances necessarily have much to do with the inner and underlying reality? I suppose you could pull the one knows the other defense -- popular here at late. That is, a trantric master knows another tantric master so its obvious if you 'KNOW'. But I was hoping for answers more substantive. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Armstrong. Einstein and Capt. Beefheart
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Ry Cooder started out in the Delta style. He moved on to fantastic fusion projects. Actually, Ry started out with one of the first fusion projects of them all, Captain Beefheart's Magic Band. He didn't stay with them long, and moved on to find his own style. Or was it Captain Beefheart's Electric Band? Or was that one of their songs? Ee---lec-t-riii---ct They were a trip live. Their albums didn't rock my world -- but I did hear many. --- Your version appears correct. It takes an outsize ego to make great art. By all accounts that was the case with Don Van Vliet, a.k.a. Captain Beefheart, leader of the quintessential cockeyed rock 'n' roll band. Creators of perhaps the most obscure critically revered rock record of all time, 1969's ``Trout Mask Replica,'' California's Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band epitomized rock's version of art for art's sake. Misunderstood -- even openly reviled -- in its day, the band has been an inspiration for such disparate musicians as PJ Harvey, Joan Osborne, Tom Waits and the late Jeff Buckley. This month, Revenant Records, a small, meticulous reissue label in Austin, Texas, is releasing the long-awaited five-CD Beefheart set ``Grow Fins: Rarities (1965-1982).'' Also coming: Buddha's reissues of early Beefheart recordings including the garagelike ``Safe as Milk'' and a two-disc Rhino Records ``best of'' compilation. ``It's a bonanza,'' says guitarist Gary Lucas, who played in Beefheart's last lineup and managed his career for a time. ``It's going to put a spotlight on the guy's genius again. ``To me he is one of the titans. He laughed and stuck out his tongue, but I'd rate him right up there.'' Stubbornly unorthodox, the Magic Band showcased marimbas, free-jazz saxophones and Van Vliet's farfetched wordplay, sung in a preposterous Wolfman Jack rasp. The band was like a wrong-way tugboat bobbing in the wake of the hippie juggernaut. The acid-rock bands ``were doing music,'' says guitarist Bill Harkleroad, who went by the moniker Zoot Horn Rollo during his years with the group (1968-74). ``We were doing art.'' Unfortunately, he says, life with Van Vliet was demanding. ``I would say I had a friendship with him, but I would also say I was completely brainwashed and brutalized by him.'' Today, Van Vliet, who switched his focus from music to painting almost two decades ago, is reportedly suffering from multiple sclerosis. He is 58 and lives in seclusion with his wife somewhere in rural California. Eerie tales of the Captain's tyrannical lead ership and the band's communal existence in and around Los Angeles abound in Harkleroad's new book, ``Lunar Notes: Zoot Horn Rollo's Captain Beefheart Experience'' (SAF Publishing/UK). ``In hindsight it was a great learning experience,'' says Harkleroad, who now lives in Eugene, Ore., where he teaches guitar and runs a record shop. ``I was looking way deep in my soul as a 19-year-old kid. . . . It was hell to go through.'' Van Vliet, a child prodigy as a sculptor, treated music making like an act of assemblage. Avant-garde jazz played as much a role in the band's evolution as the electric blues that first inspired it. ``I was listening to Coltrane as long as the headphones would stay on my head,'' Harkleroad says. ``We got into Albert Ayler and Cecil Taylor, to the point where key signatures and keys didn't matter anymore. And a Van Gogh painting might be just as important to creating this artistic mentality as any music.'' One strange result of the group's audacity was that, at the height of the hippie era, the Magic Band's core audience consisted of chemistry-set misfits. ``Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of our audience were nerds with glasses and penholders,'' Harkleroad says. ``No women.'' Matt Groening, creator of ``The Simpsons,'' has often acknowledged his love for the music of Captain Beefheart and his occasional colleague, Frank Zappa. Lucas first met Van Vliet and the band in 1971, when he helped organize a show at Yale University, where he was a student. ``I talked to Don the week before they got there,'' he recalls. ``I have a tape of that somewhere. My voice was shaking.'' The show, he says, was life-altering. ``That's when I vowed if I were to do anything in music, I'd be in that group.'' Over the years, he stayed in contact with Van Vliet. As the ever-changing Magic Band entered into a run of mediocre album releases in the mid-'70s, Lucas saw many of the band's East Coast shows, bills shared by would-be rock stars like Bob Seger and Billy Joel. Eventually he revealed his desire to audition for the group as a guitar player. Lucas joined for a cameo on the well-received 1980 album ``Doc at the Radar Station,'' then became a full-fledged band mem ber in time for what would become the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Patti Boyd: My life as a muse
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer fairfieldlife@ wrote: Patti Boyd: My life as a muse The muse sayeth: But you have to cut yourself a bit of slack in the end, I think. I certainly wouldn't have lived through any other era. People blame the 1960s for just about everything these days, but it was the decade when all that post-war furtiveness and small-mindedness was finally blown open and opportunity really came knocking. Well said. It was an interesting era to live through. I don't know who here is old enough to remember the 1950s and what it was like growing up in them. We're talking 'duck and cover.' We're talking people brag- ging about the size and quality of the fallout shelters they just built in the back yard. How many of your neighbors bragged about that to you? None in my neighbor. No one at my school (1500 kids or so). No one in entire area (Bay Area) in newspaper or TV reports. Where did you live in the 50's? Morocco? It was not a happy time, Maybe not for you. I had fun and was happy. (But my happiness usually is not dependent on the times) Sorry you missed Chuck Berry, early Memphis Elvis, Doo-Wop, Willie Mays, sputnik, polio vaccine, Burns and Allen ... no matter how many neocons think it was and want to return us to that mindset. Though I am not a neo-con, I have no desire to return to the 50's, or 60's or 70's. etc. Life is RIGHT HERE NOW. Not in some golden era of our childhoods. And I don't see neo-cons want to return to 50's. Among other things, don't they seek universal self-determination? We have come a long ways on that front since the 50's. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Patti Boyd: My life as a muse
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm old enough (56) to remember air raid drills in grammar school in which we'd assemble in the hallway and cover our heads with our hands Well, that dosn't say much for the Conn educational system. :) In california we had emergency drills where we would scoot under big tables, or doorways to protect against disasters such as earthquakes, etc. and the local lumber company had a fallout shelter for sale, prominently displayed on the main street. We used to play in it. How many bought one? Did they get to keep the kids left inside? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Patti Boyd: My life as a muse
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I don't know who here is old enough to remember the 1950s and what it was like growing up in them. .. It was not a happy time, Maybe not for you. I had fun and was happy. (But my happiness usually is not dependent on the times) Sorry you missed Chuck Berry, early Memphis Elvis, Doo-Wop, Willie Mays, sputnik, polio vaccine, Burns and Allen ... And further missed or did not enjoy: the Beat culture, the discovery of DNA, JD Salinger, the initial renaisance of folk music, Jason Pollack, Grace Kelly, I Love Lucy, Jack Benny, early Marlon Brando, James Dean, Bo Diddley, Maverick, Have Gun Will Travel, Twilight Zone, Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, Alfred Hitchcock, Buddy Holly, Yogi Berra, early Mad Magazine, Ed Murrow, The Defenders ... And sorry you missed or did not enjoy these films: Sunset Blvd. (1950) Rashômon (1950) Rio Grande (1950) The African Queen (1951) A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) Singin' in the Rain (1952) High Noon (1952) The Quiet Man (1952) Ikiru (1952) Monkey Business (1952) Roman Holiday (1953) Stalag 17 (1953) >From Here to Eternity (1953) Shane (1953) Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953) Rear Window (1954) Shichinin no samurai (1954) On the Waterfront (1954) Dial M for Murder (1954) Sabrina (1954) Strada, La (1954) The Caine Mutiny (1954) Rebel Without a Cause (1955) To Catch a Thief (1955) East of Eden (1955) The Trouble with Harry (1955) Mister Roberts (1955) Diaboliques, Les (1955) The Seven Year Itch (1955) The Searchers (1956) The Ten Commandments (1956) The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) Giant (1956) The King and I (1956) Around the World in Eighty Days (1956) 12 Angry Men (1957) The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) Paths of Glory (1957) An Affair to Remember (1957) Notti di Cabiria, Le (19 Vertigo (1958) Touch of Evil (1958) Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) Kakushi-toride no san-akunin (1958) A Night to Remember (1958) The Blob (1958) The Fly (1958) Gigi (1958) North by Northwest (1959) Some Like It Hot (1959) Ben-Hur (1959) Rio Bravo (1959) Quatre cents coups, Les (1959) Sleeping Beauty (1959) Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Pillow Talk (1959) Hiroshima mon amour (1959) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tantric Sexual Practices (was Urdhva-retas?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:14 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 1:15 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: So what is yours (and Bhairitu's) take on MMY and other teachers reported sexual encounters, with regards to tantra? Do you feel there was some reasonable probability, or not, that there was some tantric practice type use of sexual energy involved? In M's case there is no indication that there was any tantric practice involved and were there indications there were not? I am getting at, how much does anyone but the girls know about what happened behind closed door. And (this is not an apologetic comment, rather exploratory) could M have been doing stuff the girls were not aware of? That is, tantra from his side, regular sex from theirs? Based on what I've heard he said (i.e. his dismissive attitude towards tantra) What specifically have you heard? I never heard him mention tantra -- that I can recall. But I did hear him make cautionary or dismissive comments on Jyotish, ayurveda, etc, and later strongly endorse them. My sense is prior negative statements were to wait until the time is right rather than i) not know anything about them, or ii) beleiving they had no value. I would doubt it. Of course it is possible he was practicing tantra, but IMO, highly improbable. Again, why. Were you that close to him? Sitting around yagya pit under the full mmoon, trading yogi stories? He used to sing bajans in his bathtub. (per people attending to his needs). Was that highly improbable to you given his outward teachings? nor that M. even practices such methods. Indeed his emphasis has always been on Veda rather than tantra. So I'd give it zero probablility in this case. But I thought you have been saying a lot of his methods are tantric, not vedic, regardless of what he calls them. The word *tantra* does not necessarily infer *sexual*. Yes, the TM mantras are tantric in origin, but not in a sexual sense. Yes, amd the word tantra does not exclude the sexual,even if its only a small part. So his REAL emphasis has NOT always been on Veda rather than tantra. Why would you presume he only took on SOME partial tantric knowledge and not the WHOLEness of it? If anything MMY goes for the Wholeness. And aren't there indications that SBS practiced things tantric? Indeed he did. I've received practice in SBS's line of transmission, however none of those practices involved sex. Just because he didn't practice the sexual practices, being a life celibate, that in no way indicates that he did not have knowledge of such, and could not pass them on when appropriate. I have heard he -- being a world teacher taught those of all faiths (including muslims and christians) giving them things that would help them in their paths. EVEN though he did not practice such. Is Sri Vidyha tantric? Yes, highest yoga tantra. Can a student get it (things tantric) via transmission? Well, it depends what you mean by *transmission*. In some lineages you always receive a transmission before you practice, that's your initiation and permission to do the practice. I mean even if you assume SBS did not much explicitly andverbally share his tantric knowledge with MMY, could a disciple, later in an awakened state, receive such knowledge bytransmission or simply placing attention on their master? (I GET stuff by placing attention on saints -- those currently in and out of mortal coil. So I know its a valid means of insight.) Before or after the master drops his mortal coil? Did Tat Walla Baba practice tantra? M was close to him. Presumably yoga, no? I do know that M. has received tantric transmission How do you know this? --but these were essentially yoga-tantra (not Kaula or vama-marga practices, i.e. sexual practices). And how do you know of this exclusion? Muktananda is something entirely different--he appears to have mastered Vajroli or some similar technique. That's not to justify the using of young women as unwitting participants in your sexual practice as a good thing, but merely to point out what he was probably involved in. He most likely needed these methods to be able to continue iving shaktipat to groups of people (something rather untraditional in and of itself). Swami Rama, although a great adept in Inner Tantra, appears to not have been using it for practice either, but for satisfaction, control and release. appears is an interesting word. Appears to whom? (Same questions as for M. above.) To me and others who've commented. So its just appearance. Appearances are always true? Appearances are always pure SAT? Also, a tantric may engage in sex to detatch him/herself from it, to condition
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tantric Sexual Practices (was Urdhva-retas?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:14 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: Can a student get it (things tantric) via transmission? Well, it depends what you mean by *transmission*. In some lineages you always receive a transmission before you practice, that's your initiation and permission to do the practice. I got the impression nmbs was asking whether entire techniques and realizations can be transmitted to the student 'mind to mind,' without the use of words. If that was the question, I'd have to answer that with a big Yes. Yes. That was what nmbs was asking. (I am pleased you received that transmission clearly. :) ) And thus supporting, though in no way proving, the following train of logic and possibilities: 1) did SBS practice (real) tantra? Apparently yes. 2) did MMY use or teach some tantric things (regardless of what he called them)? Apparently yes. 3) Could SBS have known and even taught things (possibly including tantric) he did not personally practice? Apparently yes. 4) Could SBS have taught MMY tantric things appropriate for householders (his focus for MMY)? Possibly. 5) Could SBS or other teachers have taught MMY tantric things by (passive or active) transmission? Possibly. 6) Could MMY have learned tantric things via Ritam, mandala, or some other means of inner knowldge? Possibly. 7) Did MMY experiment and test lots of things? Emphatically yes. 8) Could MMY have sought to test some sexual tantric practices that he picked up i) directly from a teacher, or, ii) via transmission, or iii) from other yogis (tat walla babba,etc), or iv) from pundits /scriptures? Possibly. 9) Could MMY have solely sought raw sensual pleasure from his encounters? Possibly. (But doesn't fit his MO,IMO.) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Hypersensitivity about Response Posts
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:14 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: Can a student get it (things tantric) via transmission? Well, it depends what you mean by *transmission*. In some lineages you always receive a transmission before you practice, that's your initiation and permission to do the practice. I got the impression nmbs was asking whether entire techniques and realizations can be transmitted to the student 'mind to mind,' without the use of words. If that was the question, I'd have to answer that with a big Yes. Yes. That was what nmbs was asking. (I am pleased you received that transmission clearly. :) ) And thus supporting, though in no way proving, the following train of logic and possibilities: I support none of the speculations below or your assumed answsers to them. I dealt only with one question. I in no way assumed otherwise. Nor did I in any way imply it, did I? It does not relate to your followup questions or to what you seem to want to do with this information in any way. I in no way assumed otherwise. Nor did I in any way imply it, did I? ** WARNING * The FOLLOWING ARE MY OWN PERSONAL THOUGHTS AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED BY ANYONE, EVEN THE CAUSUAL AND UNCAREFUL READER, AS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE POINTS, BELIEFS. LOGIC OR CONCLUSIONS OF THE PRIOR POSTER. ** I find some react quite strongly (apparently) to posts that both address some comment in an prior post, AND then, in a new section, carve out new ground with new comments that have nothing to do with the prior poster. To me the break between the two is obvious. But if its not -- to all -- then its good feedback. Perhaps its a good practice to split comments. In a response post, respond ONLY to what the poster says. THEN start a new post, perhaps with new Subject Title, to express ones new thoughts that are not related to the prior posters. What do you think? It seems overkill to me. And would unnecessarily break up the flow of thoughts and ideas. But if some are hypersensitive to fresh ideas being introduced in a response to their posts, even if in a new section, then perhaps such hypersensitivy IMO, should be respected. Or at least tip-toed around. == 1) did SBS practice (real) tantra? Apparently yes. 2) did MMY use or teach some tantric things (regardless of what he called them)? Apparently yes. 3) Could SBS have known and even taught things (possibly including tantric) he did not personally practice? Apparently yes. 4) Could SBS have taught MMY tantric things appropriate for householders (his focus for MMY)? Possibly. 5) Could SBS or other teachers have taught MMY tantric things by (passive or active) transmission? Possibly. 6) Could MMY have learned tantric things via Ritam, mandala, or some other means of inner knowldge? Possibly. 7) Did MMY experiment and test lots of things? Emphatically yes. 8) Could MMY have sought to test some sexual tantric practices that he picked up i) directly from a teacher, or, ii) via transmission, or iii) from other yogis (tat walla babba,etc), or iv) from pundits /scriptures? Possibly. 9) Could MMY have solely sought raw sensual pleasure from his encounters? Possibly. (But doesn't fit his MO,IMO.) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Speed Reading and Implied References
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:14 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: Can a student get it (things tantric) via transmission? Well, it depends what you mean by *transmission*. In some lineages you always receive a transmission before you practice, that's your initiation and permission to do the practice. I got the impression nmbs was asking whether entire techniques and realizations can be transmitted to the student 'mind to mind,' without the use of words. If that was the question, I'd have to answer that with a big Yes. Yes. That was what nmbs was asking. (I am pleased you received that transmission clearly. :) ) I see that the references made in my words And thus supporting, though in no way proving, the following train of logic and possibilities, if made explicit, would make the intent of the words clearer (though perhaps more clunky.) Fast, skimming or careless readers, even carfeul ones occaisionally, can stumble on implied refereneces. See prior discussion on pronounds -- and the confusion they caused. (Luckily Spraig is not jail. :) ) The implied reference in And thus supporting refers to knowledge that can be transmitted to the student 'mind to mind,' without the use of words. (aka point x) -- a point I had raised, independently, by myself, in a prior post. That Unc interpreted the reference as not being point x, but rather Barry's endorsement of point x, is perhaps understandable, though a bit odd IMO. That Unc supported my independent point x, in no way was meant to imply that such was a defacto support of points 1-9. That anyone would read and assume that I felt Unc was supporting points 1-9 is mindblowing. But I will try to be even more clear and careful in future posts. Feedback is a good thing. Thanks. 1) did SBS practice (real) tantra? Apparently yes. 2) did MMY use or teach some tantric things (regardless of what he called them)? Apparently yes. 3) Could SBS have known and even taught things (possibly including tantric) he did not personally practice? Apparently yes. 4) Could SBS have taught MMY tantric things appropriate for householders (his focus for MMY)? Possibly. 5) Could SBS or other teachers have taught MMY tantric things by (passive or active) transmission? Possibly. 6) Could MMY have learned tantric things via Ritam, mandala, or some other means of inner knowldge? Possibly. 7) Did MMY experiment and test lots of things? Emphatically yes. 8) Could MMY have sought to test some sexual tantric practices that he picked up i) directly from a teacher, or, ii) via transmission, or iii) from other yogis (tat walla babba,etc), or iv) from pundits /scriptures? Possibly. 9) Could MMY have solely sought raw sensual pleasure from his encounters? Possibly. (But doesn't fit his MO,IMO.) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tantric Sexual Practices (was Urdhva-retas?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 1:00 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: What specifically have you heard? I never heard him mention tantra -- that I can recall. A friend I know asked him directly about tantra, so I'm replying based on that response. And what specifically was MMY's response. It had to be more than I am dismissive of that. But I did hear him make cautionary or dismissive comments on Jyotish, ayurveda, etc, and later strongly endorse them. My sense is prior negative statements were to wait until the time is right rather than i) not know anything about them, or ii) beleiving they had no value. Anythings possible. Have you ever met any renunciates in the practice line of the Shankaracharya Order who practiced sexual tantra? I didn't ask them. But why does that directly have anything to do with But I did hear him make cautionary or dismissive comments on Jyotish, ayurveda, etc, and later strongly endorse them. My sense is prior negative statements were to wait until the time is right rather than i) not know anything about them, or ii) beleiving they had no value. I would doubt it. Of course it is possible he was practicing tantra, but IMO, highly improbable. Again, why. Were you that close to him? Sitting around yagya pit under the full mmoon, trading yogi stories? No, I'm just commenting based on what I do know and his line of practice. OK. You find things highly improbable and zero probablility in this case on weak evidence. Yes, amd the word tantra does not exclude the sexual,even if its only a small part. So his REAL emphasis has NOT always been on Veda rather than tantra. Why would you presume he only took on SOME partial tantric knowledge and not the WHOLEness of it? If anything MMY goes for the Wholeness. What makes you think that excluding sexual tantra what not keep it whole? You remove the relevant line of practice, wholeness still remains. That was not my intended meaning. Let me try again to see if this is clearer: Yes, and the word tantra does not exclude the sexual, even if its only a small possible part of it. Given MMY had external teachings that refelcted things tantric, why do you presume he did not also have energetic, including kundalini and sexual, knowledge of tantra? I am not claiming he did, but maybe its sort of a smoking gun. (hahaha, that pun just unfolded.) You have entire lines a practice that do not include sexual practice and that's not a problem . Yes. No argument. I think your answer lies in 'what types and styles of tantric practice do we see aligned with the Shankaracharya tradition and the Advaita Vedanta tradition.' Well while it may not (or may) be part of the Shankaracharian tradition and the Advaita Vedanta traditions (Isn't Brahman which is EVERYTHING part of those traditions :) ), but appartntly explicit tantric couplings in temples and on temple walls indicates that sexual tantric practices are part of Indian religious traditions. And the Shiva lingum, while much more, has no sexual refences or antecedants? And aren't there indications that SBS practiced things tantric? Indeed he did. I've received practice in SBS's line of transmission, however none of those practices involved sex. They postively and absolutley did not include union with the Goddess? And is 1000 Heaeded Purusha related to shankaracharian andavaitian traditions? They have sexual practices. Energol. Shake-up the energy etc. (clarifications from puruasha welcome.) Some celibate sadhus seem to have sexual related rituals. So you are absolutely positive that no practices from advaitain / shankaracharian tradition do not invole sex in any form? Just because he didn't practice the sexual practices, being a life celibate, that in no way indicates that he did not have knowledge of such, and could not pass them on when appropriate. I have heard he -- being a world teacher taught those of all faiths (including muslims and christians) giving them things that would help them in their paths. EVEN though he did not practice such. Perhaps that was part of the role he acquired as part of his administrative position of Shankaracharya, i.e. to promote Shankara's tradition a la Smarta Brahmanism. I think you should consider that what he really taught was outside this role. I happily consider that. To my feeble mind however, that does not prove that SBS in inner teachings, or Shank or Advaian traditions have no practices that have anything to do with sex, such as union with the goddess. All of which swerves widely from the main point: Could MMy have some knowledge of sexually related tantric practices by one of many means? And if yes, is it possible, even consistent with his MO, to experiment and test such? I mean even if you assume SBS did not much explicitly andverbally share his tantric
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vibration Program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You may lose an arm and a leg, but the make the remaining arm and leg feel really, really good! Which seemed to be you strategy in saying you would give an arm and two legs to have sex with that blonde school teacher in the news several months ago. Keeping the 5th limb happy. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kumbaya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:45 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: Thirdly, drugs. That was the era when drugs became fashionable. What's so good about that? We found out we were being lied to? : NO ASSOCIATION AT ALL...EVEN A SUGGESTION OF SOME PROTECTIVE EFFECT BETWEEN HEAVY SMOKING OF MARIJUANA AND CANCER... Washington Post | Marc Kaufman | Posted May 26, 2006 08:14 AM  AP/CP, Richard Lam The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer. The new findings were against our expectations, said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years. We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use, he said. What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect. OK, I'll see your pot article and raise you one (to be posted later). Pot hardly first became fashionable, or was seen as a spiritual substance, in the 60's --- Cannabis has a long history of spiritual use, especially in India, where it has been used by wandering spiritual sadhus for centuries. The most famous religious group in the West to use cannabis in a spiritual context are the Rastafari movement, though they are by no means the only group. Some historians and etymologists have claimed that cannabis was used by ancient Jews, early Christians and Muslims of the Sufi order. * 1 Rastafari use * 2 Judeo-Christian use * 3 Muslim use * 4 Hindu use * 5 Sikh use * 6 Others * 7 See also * 8 References * 9 External links Rastafari use It is not known when Rastafari first made cannabis into something sacred, though it is clear that by the late 1940s Rastafari was associated with cannabis smoking at the Pinnacle community of Leonard Howell. Rastafari claim to know that cannabis is the Tree of Life mentioned in the Bible. Bob Marley, amongst many others, said, the herb [ganja is the healing of the nations. The use of cannabis, and particularly of large pipes called chalices, is an integral part of what Rastafari call Reasoning sessions. (The flaming chalice is also the symbol of Unitarian Universalism.) They see cannabis as having the capacity to allow the user to penetrate the truth of how things are much more clearly, as if the wool had been pulled from one's eyes. Thus the Rastafari come together to smoke cannabis in order to discuss the truth with each other, reasoning it all out little by little through many sessions. In this way Rastafari believe that cannabis brings the user closer to Jah. [edit] Judeo-Christian use The holy anointing oil mentioned in various sacred Hebrew texts contained, among other ingredients, an herb known as kaneh-bosm (fragrant cane). Historically interpreted to mean calamus, there is some evidence that the correct interpretation of 'fragrant cane' may in fact be cannabis. The word kaneh-bosm (the singular form of which would be kaneh-bos[1]) appears several times in the Old Testament as a bartering material, incense, and an ingredient in holy anointing oil used by the high priest of the temple.[2] The word also appears in Isaiah, [3] Jeremiah, [4] Ezekiel[5] and Song of Solomon.[6] Polish anthropologist Sula Benet published etymological evidence that suggested a word believed to be the Aramaic word for hemp can be read as kannabos and appears to be a cognate to the modern word 'cannabis', [7] with the root kan meaning reed or hemp and bosm meaning fragrant. Other published evidence suggests that cannabis may have been used as a topical psychoactive substance in this time period. As anointment is the application of topical fragrant, emollient, or medicinal ointment for ritual or therapeutic purposes, it is possible that cannabis may have been an ingredient in holy anointing oil, producing spiritual experiences due to the psychoactive properties of the ingredients.[8] Rabbinical scholars appear to be divided on the question of what kaneh-bosm means. Exodus[9] lists kinamon-bosm (qnmn-bsm) and kaneh-bosm (qnh-bsm) separately as ingredients of the holy anointing oil used by temple priests, romanized as v'th qx-lk bsmym r's mr-drvr xms m'vt vqnmn-bsm mxytv xmsym vm'tym vqnh-bsm xmsym vm'tym.[10] Rabbi Diana Villa confirms that 'Kinamon' or 'kinman bosem' is definitely cinnamon but disputes that kaneh-bosm is cannabis, offering a number of other possible interpretations from other published sources.[11] Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's annotated Torah translation entitled The Living Torah includes cannabis among several other possible interpretations of kaneh-bosm [12]. In Israel some synagogues engage in the smoking of cannabis before the holy sabbath to explore a higher spiritual learning. Elders of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tantric Sexual Practices (was Urdhva-retas?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:46 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 1:00 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: What specifically have you heard? I never heard him mention tantra -- that I can recall. A friend I know asked him directly about tantra, so I'm replying based on that response. And what specifically was MMY's response. It had to be more than I am dismissive of that. It was not very approving. Not approving of real tantra or sexual tantra? I think your answer lies in 'what types and styles of tantric practice do we see aligned with the Shankaracharya tradition and the Advaita Vedanta tradition.' Well while it may not (or may) be part of the Shankaracharian tradition and the Advaita Vedanta traditions (Isn't Brahman which is EVERYTHING part of those traditions :) ) Brahman in tantra? Find me a quote if you think it is. OK DOKIE. Perhaps my sense of references is out of whack, maybe not. Let my joke be made abundantly clear: Well while it may not (or may) be part of the Shankaracharian tradition and the Advaita Vedanta traditions (Isn't Brahman which is EVERYTHING part of those Shankaracharian tradition and the Advaita Vedanta traditions :) ) If you are still reading that I am saying Brahman is in tantra, well what can I say. I was making a joke via an indisputable tain of logic: Everything is in Brahman, thus tantra is in Brahman. And since Brahman is at the core of part of Shankaracharian and Advaita Vedanta traditions, therefore tantra must be part Shankaracharian tradition Advaita Vedanta traditions. :) They postively and absolutley did not include union with the Goddess? Not in the teaching I received. But that is hardly comprehensive or conclusive. And is 1000 Heaeded Purusha related to shankaracharian andavaitian traditions? Rig Veda, a famous quote I thought. They have sexual practices. Energol. Shake-up the energy etc. (clarifications from puruasha welcome.) Presumably to keep ojas from drying up. Some celibate sadhus seem to have sexual related rituals. Indeed they do. So you are absolutely positive that no practices from advaitain / shankaracharian tradition do not invole sex in any form? It's a renunciate trip dude. It would also depend on what you mean by any form. I just gave several examples: union with the Goddess? Energol. Shake-up the energy In any event, you're getting off tangent here. Well I may be on a tangent for your train of thought. Not mine. I hope you see the difference. The person who there is the most evidence FOR using sexual tantric practices with his disciples is probably Muktananda IMO. Not M. Of course there is Adi Da also. Which is fine. My primary hypothesis, which you have provided no evidence of substance to counter is that i) it is possible M. had knowledge of multiple, if not many real tantric practices, including the small subset related to sex and union and flows, and ii) its possible he expermiented or practiced such in his encounters,and iii) maybe it was raw sensual sex. If you have any such evidence that it was i) NOT possible M. had knowledge of multiple, if not many real tantric practices, including the small subset related to sex and union and flows, and ii) its NOT possible that he expermiented or practiced such in his encounters, and iii) OR that maybe it was NOT raw sensual sex, then provide away. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kumbaya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:45 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: Thirdly, drugs. That was the era when drugs became fashionable. What's so good about that? We found out we were being lied to? : NO ASSOCIATION AT ALL...EVEN A SUGGESTION OF SOME PROTECTIVE EFFECT BETWEEN HEAVY SMOKING OF MARIJUANA AND CANCER... Washington Post | Marc Kaufman | Posted May 26, 2006 08:14 AM  AP/CP, Richard Lam The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer. The new findings were against our expectations, said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years. We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use, he said. What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect. OK, I'll see your pot article and raise you one (to be posted later). Pot hardly first became fashionable, nor was first seen as a spiritual substance, in the 60's --- Cannabis has a long history of spiritual use, especially in India, where it has been used by wandering spiritual sadhus for centuries. The most famous religious group in the West to use cannabis in a spiritual context are the Rastafari movement, though they are by no means the only group. Some historians and etymologists have claimed that cannabis was used by ancient Jews, early Christians and Muslims of the Sufi order. * 1 Rastafari use * 2 Judeo-Christian use * 3 Muslim use * 4 Hindu use * 5 Sikh use * 6 Others * 7 See also * 8 References * 9 External links Rastafari use It is not known when Rastafari first made cannabis into something sacred, though it is clear that by the late 1940s Rastafari was associated with cannabis smoking at the Pinnacle community of Leonard Howell. Rastafari claim to know that cannabis is the Tree of Life mentioned in the Bible. Bob Marley, amongst many others, said, the herb [ganja is the healing of the nations. The use of cannabis, and particularly of large pipes called chalices, is an integral part of what Rastafari call Reasoning sessions. (The flaming chalice is also the symbol of Unitarian Universalism.) They see cannabis as having the capacity to allow the user to penetrate the truth of how things are much more clearly, as if the wool had been pulled from one's eyes. Thus the Rastafari come together to smoke cannabis in order to discuss the truth with each other, reasoning it all out little by little through many sessions. In this way Rastafari believe that cannabis brings the user closer to Jah. [edit] Judeo-Christian use The holy anointing oil mentioned in various sacred Hebrew texts contained, among other ingredients, an herb known as kaneh-bosm (fragrant cane). Historically interpreted to mean calamus, there is some evidence that the correct interpretation of 'fragrant cane' may in fact be cannabis. The word kaneh-bosm (the singular form of which would be kaneh-bos[1]) appears several times in the Old Testament as a bartering material, incense, and an ingredient in holy anointing oil used by the high priest of the temple.[2] The word also appears in Isaiah, [3] Jeremiah, [4] Ezekiel[5] and Song of Solomon.[6] Polish anthropologist Sula Benet published etymological evidence that suggested a word believed to be the Aramaic word for hemp can be read as kannabos and appears to be a cognate to the modern word 'cannabis', [7] with the root kan meaning reed or hemp and bosm meaning fragrant. Other published evidence suggests that cannabis may have been used as a topical psychoactive substance in this time period. As anointment is the application of topical fragrant, emollient, or medicinal ointment for ritual or therapeutic purposes, it is possible that cannabis may have been an ingredient in holy anointing oil, producing spiritual experiences due to the psychoactive properties of the ingredients.[8] Rabbinical scholars appear to be divided on the question of what kaneh-bosm means. Exodus[9] lists kinamon-bosm (qnmn-bsm) and kaneh-bosm (qnh-bsm) separately as ingredients of the holy anointing oil used by temple priests, romanized as v'th qx-lk bsmym r's mr-drvr xms m'vt vqnmn-bsm mxytv xmsym vm'tym vqnh-bsm xmsym vm'tym.[10] Rabbi Diana Villa confirms that 'Kinamon' or 'kinman bosem' is definitely cinnamon but disputes that kaneh-bosm is cannabis, offering a number of other possible interpretations from other published sources.[11] Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's annotated Torah translation entitled The Living Torah includes cannabis among several other possible
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kumbaya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vaj and new_morning_blank_slate (and MDixon for that matter): Fall all over yourselves in your apparent rush to defend drug use, even something as seemingly innoculous as marijuana. You'll make yourselves look foolish all by yourselves without any help from me. I hardly see why posting a scientific study, and a historical overview of real religious practices, should be so offensive to you or make anyone seem foolish. And why you see posting of them as Fall[ing] all over [our]selves in your apparent rush to defend drug use is well mindblowing. While I like a number of your comments, this one seems silly, perhaps touching some nerve that causes an irrational knee-jerk reaction. To me rationality, independent thinking, and clear thinking are values and practices to be applauded if not cherised. And at the core of libertarina thinking, IMO. Thus your irrational response surprises me. If you find any factual errors in either post (study and history of religions overview), please by all means post them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:45 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: Thirdly, drugs. That was the era when drugs became fashionable. What's so good about that? We found out we were being lied to? : NO ASSOCIATION AT ALL...EVEN A SUGGESTION OF SOME PROTECTIVE EFFECT BETWEEN HEAVY SMOKING OF MARIJUANA AND CANCER... Washington Post | Marc Kaufman | Posted May 26, 2006 08:14 AM  AP/CP, Richard Lam The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer. The new findings were against our expectations, said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years. We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use, he said. What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect. OK, I'll see your pot article and raise you one (to be posted later). Pot hardly first became fashionable, or was seen as a spiritual substance, in the 60's --- Cannabis has a long history of spiritual use, especially in India, where it has been used by wandering spiritual sadhus for centuries. The most famous religious group in the West to use cannabis in a spiritual context are the Rastafari movement, though they are by no means the only group. Some historians and etymologists have claimed that cannabis was used by ancient Jews, early Christians and Muslims of the Sufi order. * 1 Rastafari use * 2 Judeo-Christian use * 3 Muslim use * 4 Hindu use * 5 Sikh use * 6 Others * 7 See also * 8 References * 9 External links Rastafari use It is not known when Rastafari first made cannabis into something sacred, though it is clear that by the late 1940s Rastafari was associated with cannabis smoking at the Pinnacle community of Leonard Howell. Rastafari claim to know that cannabis is the Tree of Life mentioned in the Bible. Bob Marley, amongst many others, said, the herb [ganja is the healing of the nations. The use of cannabis, and particularly of large pipes called chalices, is an integral part of what Rastafari call Reasoning sessions. (The flaming chalice is also the symbol of Unitarian Universalism.) They see cannabis as having the capacity to allow the user to penetrate the truth of how things are much more clearly, as if the wool had been pulled from one's eyes. Thus the Rastafari come together to smoke cannabis in order to discuss the truth with each other, reasoning it all out little by little through many sessions. In this way Rastafari believe that cannabis brings the user closer to Jah. [edit] Judeo-Christian use The holy anointing oil mentioned in various sacred Hebrew texts contained, among other ingredients, an herb known as kaneh-bosm (fragrant cane). Historically interpreted to mean calamus, there is some evidence that the correct interpretation of 'fragrant cane' may in fact be cannabis. The word kaneh-bosm (the singular form of which would be kaneh-bos [1]) appears several times in the Old Testament as a bartering material, incense, and an ingredient in holy anointing oil used by the high priest of the temple.[2] The word also appears in Isaiah, [3] Jeremiah, [4] Ezekiel[5] and Song of Solomon.[6] Polish anthropologist Sula Benet published etymological evidence that suggested a word believed to be the Aramaic word for hemp can be read as kannabos
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tantric Sexual Practices (was Urdhva-retas?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:46 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
All of which swerves widely from the main point: Could MMy have some
knowledge of sexually related tantric practices by one of many means?
Of course you know it's likely he could, esp. if he really is a yogi,
since one of the main texts on yoga contains rather explicit
instructions...
OK then.
There's just absolutely no evidence he practices these.
And it appears, to the same degree your statement above reflects the
truth, There's just absolutely no evidence that he DOESN'T practice
these.
It's possible he received transmission of Sri Vidya in this manner,
however there is no evidence that I am aware of he did receive such.
Agreed. So its possible. Not established either way.
He also has brought people in to teach him things.
Oh the shame, the shame Were (among) their names, Larry Domash
and John Haiglin?
Indeed some of
the more prominent revelations of MMY are straight out of various
commentaries.
And you expected him to teach something outside of the Holy Tradition?
In other words, if he did claim to have received such revelation, I
(personally), would take it with a very large grain of salt.
Ok. And if he didn't claim such. But simply shared some insights he
got from listening to scripture,and discussing such from pundits.
Unfortunately it didn't come out that way to the disciples.
I didn't realize he had disciples outside of india (and avery few ex
western ones). So either you have some MUCH MUCH more inner knowledge
of M and TMO, or are overcome by the reflected light of myths which
reflect on mirrors MUCH MUCH on the outside from point from where I
observed things.
How often did you see M discuss things with Pundits? I did everyday
for a long time. And of course there have been many more days in the
past 30 years that I have not. I don't claim comprehnsiveness. But in
my in-person experience, I recall a lot of gentle back and forth,
respective and loving exchanges, and LOTS of respect paid by M to the
pundits.
Who are referencing besides {Tom??} from Estes Park?
I think he did get insights from listening to pundits, but it ended
up coming out as the Great rishi hath spoken this revealed
material.
You personally witnessed this? I never did. Rick, did you?
Or are you going on 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand accounts? Where layers of
interpreatations come into play. And tell me with a straight face
that Tom(?) the Estes Park guy doesn't have a specific angle, and
exhibits strong attempts to convince people of his POV. Not a crime,
but he clearly is not an impassioned observer.
INmy personal observation, M never claimed to be a Rig Veda scholar.
THATS why in the early 7o's he invited Pundit Devarat -- the most
respected Rig Veda pundit at thattime, to join him. To chant and
discuss things in RV everyday. I personally saw M give great respect,
honor and reverence to Deverat everyday. Same with SamaVed Pundits.
What pundits did you personally see him rob stuff from.
Now you're saying I said he robbed stuff from pundits?
sigh Nevermind.
OK. Why get dismissive and condescending, friend? I take this as a
friendly exhange to get to what we know and what we do n't know. It is
my word rob, not yours, describing what I interpreted what you were
trying to say. What verb would you use to best describe his actions
towards them.
In short, I see no evidence to support your Maharishi-as-tantric
adept enlightening his female students thru sex from the spontaneous
transmission he received from SBS once-upon-a-time.
Which I am not claiming as certain. But as one of many possiblities.
I hope the above is not a strawman formulation. You read more clearly
than that. I have raised the possibility that:
1) M had or probably had access to i) a tantric teacher, ii) a number
of tantric / yogic adepts, iii) passive and active transmission, from
ii) and iv) a culture where real tantra was known by many. And thus M
MAY have had some knowledge of the small subset of trantra having to
do with sex and internal energies. I see this as quite probable. You
may not.
2) M is an experimenter. Maybe in your experience around him, you were
not fortunate enough to see this. But its a wonderful adaptiveness and
responsiveness to what works and tossing, or waiting on, things that
don't work. Its constant. So if #1 is possible and even likely, I
personally find it possible, if not likely that M experiemented with
sexual tantra in his encounters with 20ish quite shaki-laden women
(one of the shakti-laden woman I used to observe every night).
So that you see no evidence to support your Maharishi-as-tantric
adept enlightening his female students thru sex from the spontaneous
transmission he received from SBS once-upon-a-time most odd
characterization is no surprise. Its a limited and distorted
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vibration Program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: You may lose an arm and a leg, but the make the remaining arm and leg feel really, really good! Which seemed to be you strategy in saying you would give an arm and two legs to have sex with that blonde school teacher in the news several months ago. Keeping the 5th limb happy. I gotta tell you: I don't know WHAT the fuss was all about there. She was a teacher with some areas of undisputable talent. The kid should have been given a medal for getting to have sex with her and the teacher deserves the thanks and praise from each and every male in the US that had to sit through classes given by babes like that. There should be a double standard when it comes to teachers having sex with students: Male teacher, female student: bad. Female teachers, male student: good. Well I have a lesbian friend who in HS had a huge crush on her lesbian math teacher (and I think still does). Whats Female teacher / Female student (besides something you want to see on Hi Def)? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kumbaya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Vaj and new_morning_blank_slate (and MDixon for that matter): Fall all over yourselves in your apparent rush to defend drug use, even something as seemingly innoculous as marijuana. You'll make yourselves look foolish all by yourselves without any help from me. I hardly see why posting a scientific study, and a historical overview of real religious practices, should be so offensive to you or make anyone seem foolish. And why you see posting of them as Fall[ing] all over [our]selves in your apparent rush to defend drug use is well mindblowing. While I like a number of your comments, this one seems silly, perhaps touching some nerve that causes an irrational knee-jerk reaction. To me rationality, independent thinking, and clear thinking are values and practices to be applauded if not cherised. And at the core of libertarina thinking, IMO. Thus your irrational response surprises me. If you find any factual errors in either post (study and history of religions overview), please by all means post them. I am for the full legalisation of drugs, as I've posted here many times. But there's nothing -- absolutely no reason -- for participants on a spiritual site to have any suggestions in their minds that drugs are a good thing. Which is a fine POV. Particularly if it works for you. But apparently ancients and moderns in many world religions disagree with you. And health officials indicate that at least one health issue is a myth. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kumbaya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: I am for the full legalisation of drugs, as I've posted here many times. But there's nothing -- absolutely no reason -- for participants on a spiritual site to have any suggestions in their minds that drugs are a good thing. The editors of Tricycle, probably the most respected Buddhist journal, disagreed. A few years ago they devoted an entire issue to a discussion of the relationship of drugs and spiritual development. It was a wonderful issue, very ballsy, and presented viewpoints from all sides, but without any of the rancor and moralism we're starting to see here. Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. New York: Buddhist Ray, Inc. Vol. VI, number 1, Fall, 1996. Thanks. But those moeny grubbing buddhists only want to make money off this knowledge and charge me outrageous sums (and make me wait for snail mail). http://www.tricycle.com/catalog/backissues/ (um for the humor challenged, which indeed may be me, the above was a satire of comments about the TMO.) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Drugs, was: Kumbaya
OK, just to irritate Shemp, and possible Vaj, Bhariru, Unc and who knows who else (hey a 4-shot is pretty good) here is another article. Warning!!! Warning The above was intented humor and does NOT endorse irritating people. Warning!!! Warning On Sexual Tantra and Pot. Now we just need the rock'n'roll. (As Jimi was rumored to have said, NOW THATS'S WHOLENESS - Marijuana Reform Marijuana and Sex: A Classic Combination by Terry Necco (01 Sept, 1998) Ancient tantrists and modern researchers agree: pot and sex are two great things that go together. Marijuana and sex are gifts of nature. We enjoy them because biology and evolution have equipped us to do so. Just as our bodies contain pleasure systems which reward us for sex; our brains contain neurocellular circuitry which can only be activated by substances with THC's molecular structure. This makes the marijuana high a unique constellation of feelings, and there are only two sources for the substances which activate THC's very own neuroreceptor. Our brain is one source: it generates a neurochemical very similar to THC, called anandamide. Translated, the word means bliss. The only other source for this bliss-producing substance is the cannabis plant. Being stoned or sexually aroused both produce similar physiological responses, such as increased heart rate, heightened sensitivity, changes in blood flow and respiration, relaxation an acutely altered state of consciousness. Neurochemistry, hormonal systems, and brain regions such as the temporal lobe are affected by both marijuana and sexual arousal. Sex and pot provide us with euphoric peak experiences, unity of body and mind, a healing escape from routine existence. If other people are involved with us in sexual activity or marijuana use, such experiences can be especially intimate and revelatory, facilitating trusting, loving relationships. Pot the aphrodesiac Marijuana has been used as an aphrodisiac for thousands of years, yet ironically it has also been used to decrease sexual desire. Ancient sacred texts reveal how to use marijuana to increase sexual pleasure, but modern research teaches an equally important lesson: marijuana's effects are determined by the personality, physiology, intention, environment, and culture of the user. Ancient India The culture of ancient India is closely associated with sexual marijuana use. Cannabis has been used in India for at least 3,000 years, probably much longer. The Indian Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbi medicine systems used cannabis to increase libido, conquer impotence, and cure various diseases. These systems also utilized opium, sometimes in combination with cannabis. Dozens of formulations containing cannabis were prescribed as aphrodisiacs. Their names are delicious: shrimadananda modaka, uttama vajikarana, majun falaskari, roghan bhang, among others. These formulations were reputed to produce long-lasting erections, delay ejaculation, facilitate lubrication and loosen inhibitions. Tantra Sexual cannabis use which transcended hedonism and medicine rose up in an esoteric Hindu-Buddhist tradition known as Tantra, a mystical religion which prescribes physical and mental exercises like meditation and yoga. These practices are intended to help the practicioner escape suffering and achieve enlightenment and perfection, known as Nirvana. Advanced Tantra marijuana rituals were intense, complex and difficult. Researchers have uncovered sacred texts describing cannabis rituals, but doubt that modern Tantra practitioners still engage in such activities. Modern Tantra has, like many other indigenous spiritual practices, been co-opted by people with little connection to the cultures, communities and environments from which the religions arose. Modern Tantra, though an important source of sexual and spiritual enlightenment, scarcely resembles the hard-core Tantra described in sacred writings like the Mahanirvana Tantra, which was composed in the 11th century AD. Tantra practitioners believe that human bodies contain energy systems consisting of nerves, heart and spiritual elements that are linked to cosmic and nature-based energies. Males and females have differing degrees and types of energy; and yogic sexual practices unite these energies, creating circuits which allow participants to find new heights of intimacy and to transcend egocentric consciousness, helping them realize their timeless place in the universe. Tantric union of male and female energies is thought to facilitate universal balance and to atone for human sins against nature and the cosmos. Tantra cannabis rituals date back at least to 700 AD, and involved groups of purified male and female worshippers who engaged in fasting, chanting, prayer, ceremonial purifications, Kundalini yoga, and sexual union, subjecting body and spirit to excruciating and ecstatic ordeals. Concentration, consecration and transformation were the goals of such rituals, which were conducted in temples
[FairfieldLife] Re: Drugs: Be Here Now, Stoned,
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/ramdass.cfm A Harvard-educated teacher, philosopher and spiritual seeker, Ram Dass is a living bridge between the wisdom of the East and Western ideals of justice and social action. He has been a life-long champion of social policies based on reason and compassion and has been a key ally in the fight for drug reform. Dass suffered a massive stroke in 1997 that left him paralyzed on his right side and coping with speech difficulties. In spite of the stroke, Dass, who uses medical marijuana to help treat his condition, has continued to offer poignant and often personal comments criticizing the failures of the `war on drugs,' excerpts of which appear below. * Ram Dass: I am part of the Drug Policy Alliance, directed by a VERY smart guy, Ethan Nadelmann. He was a professor at Princeton, and then he was selected by George Soros to direct this group. Nadelmann is the point man against the current War on Drugs policy, and its effectsthe state prohibition against marijuana, the prison-industry connection, the link between differential enforcement of these laws and racial injustice, mandatory sentencingthe whole gamut... Nadelmann directs an international effort to expose this war on drugs for what it is, and to change these prohibitionist policies. Ethan is talking about harm reductionan important concept. I back him, just all the way Peter Moore: Talk to me about your own use. Ram Dass: First of all, I use medical marijuana for my stroke to control spastic movements, and for pain. These are my legal reasons for using. But that's the minor use of it. More important, I use marijuana because the stroke captures my consciousnessand I use it to free my consciousness from the stroke. I use it to free my words. Peter Moore: And it works? Ram Dass: And it works. It works. So that's Mother healing... healing deeply. --Be A Soul The Innerview with Ram Dass by Peter Moore, July 29, 2003 * David: How has medical marijuana been helpful to you? Ram Dass: It has helped me quiet down the spasticity and the pain. It's also given me a perspective toward the stroke that's spiritual. I haven't found many doctors who understand that medical marijuana is good for people who have had strokes, although there are data that show it has been good for stroke victims, because it's good for brain function. I've had to fight my way against doctors to use medical marijuana. --Stroked by the Guru, David Jay Brown Interviews Ram Dass * I think the Santa Cruz bust was the poster child for the war against the war on drugs. Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance says [WAMM member] Valerie Corral is the Mother Teresa of the medical marijuana movement. My purpose in coming to the Fierce Grace benefit screening is to let people know that Valerie and Michael Corral do incredible work. --Breaking On Through Again, Sarah Phelan, November 6-13, 2002 issue of Metro Santa Cruz, Metro Publishing Inc. WAMM is a California medical marijuana collective that was raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration. * In California, the stroke is incredible grace because it gives me a prescription to buy pot. He took out a joint that had been rolled for him. Pot takes away the pain and frees me from spasticity. As he smoked, I watched the fingers of his right fist uncurl and the hand relax. And then there are side benefits. He laughed. It provides . . . perspective about the illness. The ego's view is, 'Oh, I've had a stroke, this is horrible!' But the pot takes you to the soul view which is. . . . He pretended to look down from a distance. My, what an interesting occurrence.' The marijuana gives me soul perspective. It makes the stroke livable. --The Dass Effect, Sara Davidson, New Frontier Magazine To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kumbaya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: I am for the full legalisation of drugs, as I've posted here many times. But there's nothing -- absolutely no reason -- for participants on a spiritual site to have any suggestions in their minds that drugs are a good thing. The editors of Tricycle, probably the most respected Buddhist journal, disagreed. A few years ago they devoted an entire issue to a discussion of the relationship of drugs and spiritual development. It was a wonderful issue, very ballsy, and presented viewpoints from all sides, but without any of the rancor and moralism we're starting to see here. Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. New York: Buddhist Ray, Inc. Vol. VI, number 1, Fall, 1996. I'm right; they're wrong. But, of course, they're entitled to their opinion...just as that Dutch group of pedophiles who are trying to start their own political party because they feel it's okay to bugger teenage boys...and they put up a good argument for it: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread210052/pg1 Without reading it, I am guessing that the Buddhists who wrote the above tract are on a par -- at least rationally -- with the pedophile party. Oh my. Equating spiritual use of ganja with pedaphiles. This has got to be the lowest form of Non Sequitur on FFL yet. And its amittedly not even based on reading the article. Pure specualtion. Oh my. We are not working with an unbiased, clear, free inquiry kind of mind here. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kumbaya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: I'm all for myth-busting. But I'm also for common sense. Great! Do you have the date set for the big plunge? (when you plan to start using it?) :) Unbiased, rational, critical thinking are also great things. Put them on your things to try list. :) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tantric Sexual Practices (was Urdhva-retas?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: Which is fine. My primary hypothesis, which you have provided no evidence of substance to counter is that i) it is possible M. had knowledge of multiple, if not many real tantric practices, including the small subset related to sex and union and flows, and ii) its possible he expermiented or practiced such in his encounters,and iii) maybe it was raw sensual sex. If you have any such evidence that it was i) NOT possible M. had knowledge of multiple, if not many real tantric practices, including the small subset related to sex and union and flows, and ii) its NOT possible that he expermiented or practiced such in his encounters, and iii) OR that maybe it was NOT raw sensual sex, then provide away. Once again, ANYTHING is possible, some things are more probable. It's highly improbable M. is a tantric adept, B! Red herring alert. :) No need to be a tantric adept to have some basic knowledge of sexual tantra. for the numerous valid reasons I've already given. But it would be helpful to have a clearer blow-by-blow description from one of the ladies involved. ;-) You perv! :) Maybe you and shemp can watch after the math teacher student video. :) One further comment. Most tantra which is of a sexual nature also requires a corresponding female adept, Hey Jennifer was WAY adept (at overflowing in shakti). Oh, you mean like a tantric adept. Never mind I mean, where is a girl going to learn these things!!?? if some kindly teacher type isn't going to show them. I bet MGM offers to initiate the inexperienced non-adepts into the practice. otherwise there is utter imbalance in the equation. So Muktanada's 16 yr olds were tantra adepts? Come on!!! And I know of a sexual tantra adeptress in the Bay Area willing to teach even the most unadept. Maybe part of adeptness is being able to balance things out even with the less adept. I mean if ALL sexual trantic adepts had to be full adepts before they practiced any sexual tantric practices, we have a real chicken and egg problem here, don't we! ED Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tantric Sexual Practices (was Urdhva-retas?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 6/5/06 5:16 PM, vajradhatu108 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Once again, ANYTHING is possible, some things are more probable. It's highly improbable M. is a tantric adept, for the numerous valid reasons I've already given. But it would be helpful to have a clearer blow-by-blow description from one of the ladies involved. ;-) One account mentioned premature ejaculations. Doesn't sound too Tantric. It sounds more like Vaj's famous balanced equations One non-adept attempting sexual tanric with another. The first part of the hypothesis is not that he was a sexual tantic adept, but that in a live in i)india, iii) around all sorts or yogis, and sadhus, iii) 13 close years with a master with tantric (not necessarily sexual) kowledge, that low and behod, via at least osmosis, he sort of got the drift. The second part of the hypothesis, is that he may have experimented with whatever knowledge he had per above. And OOOPS!, mistakes happen! Even in the best of experiments. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tantric Sexual Practices (was Urdhva-retas?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He also has brought people in to teach him things.
Oh the shame, the shame Were (among) their names, Larry Domash
and John Haiglin?
No...
So it was ok to bring in Domash and Haiglin to teach him things, but
not pundits expert in different parts of the Veda? Did/do you really
believe M was an expert in everything? I never suffered that delusion,
thus I guess I am not shocked when its said M brought people in to
teach him stuff. I just figured that was smart.
Who are referencing besides {Tom??} from Estes Park?
I am not referring to anyone named Tom, sorry.
OK, Rick, AMTers. help me out. What is the name of the guy who was in
Estes Park, was innerish circle for a bit, observed M discussing
with pudits points of insight and commentary, freaked out about it,
and wrote extensively on AMT (I think) and other places about it?
I think he did get insights from listening to pundits, but it ended
up coming out as the Great rishi hath spoken this revealed
material.
You personally witnessed this? I never did. Rick, did you?
Then show me where they are credited. Perhaps he has in his spoken
lectures credited these men--or perhaps it's in some writing I missed.
Um, odd question, IMO M often references pundits he has talked to. Or
groups. But probably not always. I learned a lot of stuff in college
(I know --it hardly shows) from lots of profs, but I don't usually
reference each and every one when I speak authorittively on things. Do
you? How odd if so.
In my personal observation, M never claimed to be a Rig Veda
scholar.
THATS why in the early 7o's he invited Pundit Devarat -- the most
respected Rig Veda pundit at thattime, to join him. To chant and
discuss things in RV everyday. I personally saw M give great
respect,
honor and reverence to Deverat everyday. Same with SamaVed
Pundits.
I'm merely responding to your remarks attempting to imply I said
something which I did not, or imply some sort of tone to my response.
I used the term rob. I said apparently I got it wrong. Again, What
verb would you use to best describe his [M} actions
towards them [pundits] [and the knowledge he gleaned from them]?
I have raised the possibility that:
1) M had or probably had access to i) a tantric teacher, ii) a number
of tantric / yogic adepts, iii) passive and active transmission, from
ii) and iv) a culture where real tantra was known by many. And thus M
MAY have had some knowledge of the small subset of trantra having to
do with sex and internal energies. I see this as quite probable. You
may not.
Anythings possible...but I still find the idea lacking, or more
likely desperation of your part. It just doesn't wash in so many ways.
hahaha. Desparation!!! ??? As if I care if he banged Jennifer with a
cowboy hat on yelling yahoo? More power to him if thats the case.
She was poised, charming and beautiful. But in my experience around M,
it just seems that experimenting with stuff was more his style. And
experimenting with tantric sex presented itself. And he did it.
I am guessing you didn't get a chance to see, beyond lectures, and
grok his experimental style. Lets try this and see what happens.
Then lets try this and see what happens. Then... All his famous
unfinished projects are IMO just experiments he started, got the
response he needed, and he moved on.
2) M is an experimenter. Maybe in your experience around him, you were
not fortunate enough to see this. But its a wonderful adaptiveness and
responsiveness to what works and tossing, or waiting on, things that
don't work. Its constant. So if #1 is possible and even likely, I
personally find it possible, if not likely that M experiemented with
sexual tantra in his encounters with 20ish quite shaki-laden women
(one of the shakti-laden woman I used to observe every night).
Of course we know he is an experimenter, but there has never been any
overtly sexual teachings brought out, or any meetings with tantrics
reported.
Duh. :) Not all experiments work out. And who knows whathe tells the
rajas.
Of course it could have happened. But he also could have in
depth sexual imformation from the extraterrtrials in that UFO in
Switzerland. At least some people witnessed that...
hahahaha. Yea. Ask Casey Coleman and Rick Stanely who people on FFL
SWORE they had heard these guys say they witnessed UFOs with M. They
each responded on FFL and basically said, What crap.
So that you see no evidence to support your Maharishi-as-tantric
adept enlightening his female students thru sex from the spontaneous
transmission he received from SBS once-upon-a-time most odd
characterization is no surprise. Its a limited and distorted,
strawmanish representation of what has been said, its mind-boggling
that its coming from you. Who I take as a open, open-inquiry,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dissent over Global Warming and be an outcast
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chill out over global warming By David Harsanyi Denver Post Staff Columnist Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears. Thats the attitude of many, it apepars,who know nothing. They can only assume others are as uninformed as they are. I mean all those big words. It must be bogus gobblygook. Its just those knucklehead geeks from high school who think they are S smart. Lets pants 'em! The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree. Out of the 50,000 that don't agree.Who have been debating the issue for years. And have come to a close, growing consensus. Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. As am I, perhaps. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming hoax makes him an outcast. They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, Gray says. Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was. Maybe. Maybe from 10 feet underwater. :) But anyone who equates global winter with global warming, IMO, is probably a charlatan, or a highly paid consultant to heavy CO2 producers. Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age. Which is coming. Between now and 20,000 plus years. In fact, we are still in a major ice age, just a relatively short, 50,000-100,000 year interglaciation period -- a plateau of warm weather. Climatologists, reads the piece, are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. And his bad research 30 years ago proves current research is bogus? Oh my! Another highly respected (by the oil industry?) climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical. Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted over and over again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions. Which are converging. Only a few are left on the radical tails of the distribution. Its a fairy tight bell, hoovering around the mean of concensus. I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over? Quite frankly, says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. Which closely converge. Not all over the board. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard. Good. lets hear them. And If they are not the few in fringe tails, differences with most cliamate scientists is relatively small. Their differenes with cowboy yahoo journalists who admit to knowing nothing may be large. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tantric Sexual Practices (was Urdhva-retas?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 5, 2006, at 7:36 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, vajradhatu108 vajranatha@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: Which is fine. My primary hypothesis, which you have provided no evidence of substance to counter is that i) it is possible M. had knowledge of multiple, if not many real tantric practices, including the small subset related to sex and union and flows, and ii) its possible he expermiented or practiced such in his encounters,and iii) maybe it was raw sensual sex. If you have any such evidence that it was i) NOT possible M. had knowledge of multiple, if not many real tantric practices, including the small subset related to sex and union and flows, and ii) its NOT possible that he expermiented or practiced such in his encounters, and iii) OR that maybe it was NOT raw sensual sex, then provide away. Once again, ANYTHING is possible, some things are more probable. It's highly improbable M. is a tantric adept, B! Red herring alert. :) No need to be a tantric adept to have some basic knowledge of sexual tantra. So are you implying sexual tantra is generally practiced by beginners or those of intermediate experience? Oh My. Do you REALLY hold B follows from A above? If so, thats enlightening. In so many ways. Oh please, I've been reading your red herring soup all day! Please point it out. I hate logical fallacies. If I have been making some, please point them out specifically. (or will it be, I can't at this time excuse again. :)) otherwise there is utter imbalance in the equation. So Muktanada's 16 yr olds were tantra adepts? Come on!!! Again, an important fine point. Muktananda claimed to be doing yoni- puja on these women AND practicing urdhva-retas on these kids. And first hand accounts tend to bear this out, that is they were congruent with someone who was practicing vajroli. Interestingly this practice is also considered helpful in being able to perform shaktipat, so there is a practical connection there (which of course also makes it much more difficult for these ladies to process their trauma). And so your points about muktananda do possibly not apply to M? And I know of a sexual tantra adeptress in the Bay Area willing to teach even the most unadept. Please don't forget to write. Should I cc your wife? :) Maybe part of adeptness is being able to balance things out even with the less adept. I mean if ALL sexual trantic adepts had to be full adepts before they practiced any sexual tantric practices, we have a real chicken and egg problem here, don't we! Not necessarily. The tantric adepts I know have spent decades learning and actually balancing their energies and kundalini--and how to move it through the various conduits of the body. They have detailed experiential knowledge of sexual energy and the pranas. When it comes time to use or be a mudra, they already well know what is necessary. In other words these are like spiritual olympic athletes. And thus there may NOT always be utter imbalance in the equation for some with experience are with one of less so? If so, that contradicts your point above -- the springboard for the last several paragrahs of discussion. Let me guess. The Paradox of Brahman defense? :) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kumbaya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Without reading it, I am guessing that the Buddhists who wrote the above tract are on a par -- at least rationally -- with the pedophile party. Oh my. Equating spiritual use of ganja with pedaphiles. This has got to be the lowest form of Non Sequitur on FFL yet. And its amittedly not even based on reading the article. Pure specualtion. Oh my. We are not working with an unbiased, clear, free inquiry kind of mind here. But shemp clearly has his reasons even if he didn't read the article, just like the kids who killed and tortured the kittens at Noah's Ark shelter several years ago had their reasons for doing so. I just don't happen to agree with either of them. Oh good. We now have spiritual use of ganja, male pedophelia (apparently shemp is WAY OK with female pedophilia as long as he can watch), murdered kittens, and the sickos who do such. Wow, I am not sure how much better this can get. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kumbaya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Without reading it, I am guessing that the Buddhists who wrote the above tract are on a par -- at least rationally -- with the pedophile party. Oh my. Equating spiritual use of ganja with pedaphiles. This has got to be the lowest form of Non Sequitur on FFL yet. And its amittedly not even based on reading the article. Pure specualtion. Oh my. We are not working with an unbiased, clear, free inquiry kind of mind here. But shemp clearly has his reasons even if he didn't read the article, just like the kids who killed and tortured the kittens at Noah's Ark shelter several years ago had their reasons for doing so. I just don't happen to agree with either of them. Oh good. We now have: * spiritual use of ganja, * male pedophelia (apparently shemp is WAY OK with female pedophilia * as long as he can watch), * murdered kittens, and *the sickos who do such. all mixed up and somehow equated or relevant to each other. Wow, I am not sure how much better this can get. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tantric Sexual Practices (was Urdhva-retas?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
no_reply@ wrote:
snip
Who are referencing besides {Tom??} from Estes Park?
I am not referring to anyone named Tom, sorry.
OK, Rick, AMTers. help me out. What is the name of the guy who
was
in Estes Park, was innerish circle for a bit, observed M
discussing with pudits points of insight and commentary, freaked
out about it, and wrote extensively on AMT (I think) and other
places about it?
He went by various names. One of them was a Sanskrit
term I can't remember, began with an SU-, I think, ended
in an A, two or three syllables.
Sudarsha.
Thanks.
He called himself Tom
YES. I thought so.
So Vaj I was referring to the post of Tom aka Sudarsha re the guy who
freaked out when he saw M consulting with pundits. Any other sources
for your conclusion about M borrowing from pundits unatributted?
And I fully admit borrowing: is my term, as was rob which you
clearly did not like. Does borrowing capture your thought? If not,
what verb does?
in one of his netcarnations, but there were others as well.
He's turned up a couple of times recently on alt.m.t, I
believe, with yet another name.
Man, as bad as that asshole akasha :)
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--
Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
~-
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
