[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra - can't embed in mail
I posted it on the group webpage, and it shows there. But it doesn't show in yahoo mail. BTW, Bhairitu could you help me out on the FRINGE. I just don't understand why Peter Bishop hops onto the Machine to heal both the universes, and then steps out and disappears out of the timeline. He later leaks back into the universe and finds himself forgotten. The storyline borders on the absurd. The two Walter Bishops couldn't help him, nor they can understand how he could reappear. Considering their massive IQ, how so? William Bell dies in the original timeline, only to reappear in the second timeline in a slightly different persona. A bit shoddy I think. I still haven't read any reviews of it yet. --- Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: Did you post this via email? This shows embedded on Neo both mobile and desktop. I think the links I posted via email also did that. I do note that Neo is using some different emoticon code because the standard ones aren't showing as graphics on Neo. On 02/27/2014 04:45 AM, jedi_spock@... mailto:jedi_spock@... wrote: I don't think you can embed youtube in yahoo mail or gmail. I wonder how HTML5 works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCglvcsC9Ss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCglvcsC9Ss
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra - can't embed in mail
You might try the free Google Chrome browser; it has a box where you can link the YouTube URL. Wasted Days and Wasted Nights - Freddy Fender http://youtu.be/-Qu8RPvhP-U On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:28 AM, jedi_sp...@yahoo.com wrote: I posted it on the group webpage, and it shows there. But it doesn't show in yahoo mail.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra - can't embed in mail
My account is maintained by Yahoo Mail but I just use an email client and no, YouTube links just show as links in Thunderbird. I stopped watching Fringe after about the third season. I hate watching shows that string you along just so the production company can get a paycheck. It's TV and writers will take poetic license. On one of my TV hangouts folks go on ad nausea over shows that aren't realistic enough. I prefer the European trend of having fewer episodes for a season and all of them rich. The only exception seems to be the X-Files alumni who know how to show run. That of course includes, Vince Gilligan (Breaking Bad) and the late Kim Manners (Supernatural). The latter show just got a renewal. It was a favorite of my tantric guru because they actually had some tantric rituals in it. It also doesn't take itself seriously. The show is in it's 9th season. A couple episodes back they even did a show around a Fargo theme complete with a you becha woman sheriff. On 03/01/2014 05:28 AM, jedi_sp...@yahoo.com wrote: I posted it on the group webpage, and it shows there. But it doesn't show in yahoo mail. BTW, Bhairitu could you help me out on the FRINGE. I just don't understand why Peter Bishop hops onto the Machine to heal both the universes, and then steps out and disappears out of the timeline. He later leaks back into the universe and finds himself forgotten. The storyline borders on the absurd. The two Walter Bishops couldn't help him, nor they can understand how he could reappear. Considering their massive IQ, how so? William Bell dies in the original timeline, only to reappear in the second timeline in a slightly different persona. A bit shoddy I think. I still haven't read any reviews of it yet. --- Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: Did you post this via email? This shows embedded on Neo both mobile and desktop. I think the links I posted via email also did that. I do note that Neo is using some different emoticon code because the standard ones aren't showing as graphics on Neo. On 02/27/2014 04:45 AM, jedi_spock@... mailto:jedi_spock@... wrote: I don't think you can embed youtube in yahoo mail or gmail. I wonder how HTML5 works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCglvcsC9Ss
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Jason wrote 'Quantum field', 'Scientific principles' and mathematical principles are in fact, abstract, intangible aspects of nature. You are correct in saying that there is a worthwhile difference, between 'materialism' and 'naturalism'. --- compost1uk compost1uk@ wrote: Which means that the so-called intangible is real, no? Perhaps *very* real? Perhaps even *more* real than some tangible stuff, such as a doorstop - against which you can certainly stub your toe. This is a funny concept to the modern (nominalistic) mind. But the Ancients would have had no trouble with it at all. http://www.dunelm-mill.com/shop/rugs/doorstops/ http://www.dunelm-mill.com/shop/rugs/doorstops/ There are clear, distinct, differences between 'materialism' 'naturalism' and 'reductionism'. Nagel probably uses these terms interchangably and with some ambiguity. 'Materialism' is a much more generic term and is used as an opposite to 'spiritualism'. 'Naturalism' and 'Reductionism' are more specific terms, relating to the methodology of Science. After a carefull study of evolution, you will notice that evolution is partially deterministic and partially random. There seems to be a deterministic pattern, and yet within that deterministic pattern a lot of randomness plays out. The analogy given is that of a football game, where there is a broad set of rules and yet every player can express his creativity in his own unique way. Researchers state that 50,000 basic organic molecules, each can combine with each other in thousands of different ways. So there are thousands of different ways to create life. Thus the chances of life forming is quite probable. A lot of Scientists now also say that the emergence of life might be a natural consequence of the laws of physics, and the laws of chemistry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Jason wrote: (snip) There are clear, distinct, differences between 'materialism' 'naturalism' and 'reductionism'. Nagel probably uses these terms interchangably and with some ambiguity. --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Wrong again, Jason. 'Materialism' is a much more generic term and is used as an opposite to 'spiritualism'. --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Not by Nagel. He's an atheist, remember? Well, he better get his semantics right, or there is always the risk of a wide swathe of reviewers misunderstanding it. If natural selection is a zero sum game, they will eventually figure it out with game theories. In the end, it could be just abstract mathematical intelligence. 'Naturalism' and 'Reductionism' are more specific terms, relating to the methodology of Science.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Jason wrote:
Xeno, it's not clear what Nagel exactly means by
materialist.
Judy wrote:
Yes, it is. It's one who believes that everything can
be accounted for at the most basic level by the physical
sciences, extended to include biology.
Jason wrote:
In fact, many religionists and intelligent
design advocates, think that evolution is 100% percent
random. That is incorrect and not the case.
Judy wrote:
I could have sworn I told you that Nagel was neither a
religionist (he's an atheist) nor an intelligent design
advocate.
--- compost1uk compost1uk@ wrote:
Whilst I agree with the point you are making to Jason, it
seems to me that you could go along with all of the above,
but still deny 'materialism'. For example, in what sense
is a quantum field material? Or, what is the material
reality of a scientific law? Or what is the material
reality of a mathematical truth such as some infinities
are greater than others?
In other words, there may be a worthwhile difference to be
made between naturalism (to which I'm inclined) and
materialism (to which I am not inclined)
{Jeez - no preview option that I can see in this
NEO-crap-shit. Heaven knows how this will come out in the
wash).
'Quantum field', 'Scientific principles' and mathematical
principles are in fact, abstract, intangible aspects of
nature.
You are correct in saying that there is a worthwhile
difference, between 'materialism' and 'naturalism'.
After a carefull study of evolution, you will notice
that
evolution is partially deterministic and partially
random.
There seems to be a deterministic pattern, and yet
within
that deterministic pattern a lot of randomness plays
out.
The anology given is that of a football game, where
there is
a broad set of rules and yet every player can express
his
creativity in his own unique way.
Researchers state that 50,000 basic organic molecules,
each
can combine with each other in thousands of different
ways.
So there are thousands of different ways to create
life.
Thus the chances of life forming is quite probable.
A lot of Scientists now also say that the emergence
of life
might be a natural consequence of the laws of physics,
and
the laws of chemistry.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --snip-- While I do not have time to enter the fray here at the moment, I did notice this thread about 'Mind and Cosmos' which I have *not* read but which seemingly brings up once again the 'hard problem of consciousness'. Well, sorta. The focus isn't so much on what consciousness is in an experiential sense, but rather on how it got there. (Nagel covered the experiential I do not think hard problem will go away philosophically or experimentally. Not if science continues to be stuck in a reductionist mode of understanding it. Once scientists start listening to the philosophers, however, there may be some progress. I suspect some here (not necessarily you, Xeno, given that you're named for a philosopher) don't have a very good idea of what philosophy is or how it can contribute to science and to everyday life generally. I think they may have an image of elderly men sitting around daydreaming and occasionally uttering abstract thoughts that have no relevance except to their daydreams. Actually, philosophy is a *discipline*, a very stringent one, that involves, among other things, learning how to think constructively. Epistemology is an important concern of philosophy; so are logic, aesthetics, ethics, and metaphysics (a lot of the stuff we talk about here all the time, not always that constructively). Wikipedia's short definition: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy Philosophy is very important in the study of consciousness because consciousness can be studied empirically only around the edges, as it were. You can't study (what Robin would call) first-person ontology *in situ*--at least not anybody *else's* first-person ontology. (snip) I came across some web pages discussing Nagel's book: I actually gave Seraphita the URL for an annotated list by Feser of this whole series of posts: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/06/mind-and-cosmos-roundup.html (Actually there's a total of ten posts, so four are missing from your list.) Feser is generally supportive of Nagel's thesis, although he has a few minor nits to pick. A similarly minded philosopher, Bill Vallicella, also has a series of posts on Mind and Cosmos: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/nagel-thomas/ http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/ferguson-on-nagel.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-i.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-ii.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iii.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iv.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-v.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-vi.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/pummeled_with_p068931.html This one (just above) is by an intelligent design advocate, on a blog sponsored by the Discovery Institute. No surprise that this writer would approve of Nagel. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/35163-mind-and-cosmos-why-the-materialist-neo-darwinian-conception-of-nature-is-almost-certainly-false/ --- Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Thanks for mentioning Feser made 10 posts and the link. I only found 6 on a cursory search as I only had a few spare minutes this morning and had to dash off doing whatever it is I do (taking a morning nap on a park bench?). Xeno, it's not clear what Nagel exactly means by materialist. In fact, many religionists and intelligent design advocates, think that evolution is 100% percent random. That is incorrect and not the case. After a carefull study of evolution, you will notice that evolution is partially deterministic and partially random. There seems to be a deterministic pattern, and yet within that deterministic pattern a lot of randomness plays out. The anology given is that of a football game, where there is a broad set of rules and yet every player can express his creativity in his own unique way. Researchers state that 50,000 basic organic molecules, each can combine with each other in thousands of different ways. So there are thousands of different ways to create life. Thus the chances of life forming is quite probable. A lot of Scientists now also say that the emergence of life might be a natural consequence of the laws of physics, and the laws of chemistry.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
The answer we gotten before from some here is, random brain activity. From: waybac...@yahoo.com waybac...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 7:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Chopra nothing without Maharishi Iranitea, I am really glad you wrote what you did, about the crown chakra experience perhaps modifying a person's atheism. It is an experience, not just an idea or an attempt to use words. Somehow it rings really true. --- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Hi Xeno, this triggered something some time ago, when I wasn't subscribed. You said: Ever wonder what a neo-Darwinist atheist would experience in GC? (Assuming GC is a real state of experience) I have been thinking about this, not really in the context of GC, which I don't really know, but rather in relation to another experience I have, namely that of the crown chakra, the Sahasradala. Speaking from that experience, having had this in a fairly clear and consistent way, I don't *believe* one could be a full-fledged atheist. Dawkins couldn't stay Dawkins with this experience. Now, I say *full-fledged* atheist, because it depends of course on your definition of the terms 'theist' and 'atheist'. I don't mean with that, that you have to believe in a very personalized concept of a creator God, or even any personal God, but you definitely experience a totally different dimension of Being, so I don't think you could deny a very clear and concrete sense of an Absolute, however inexpressible this may be. You could maybe be a Buddhist atheist, if that's how you would call it, but not in a sense, how Curtis or even Dawkins define it. That's just my 2 cents. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --snip-- While I do not have time to enter the fray here at the moment, I did notice this thread about 'Mind and Cosmos' which I have *not* read but which seemingly brings up once again the 'hard problem of consciousness'. I do not think hard problem will go away philosophically or experimentally. When the brain is deactivated, all observable appearances of conscious behaviour vanish. But as meditators of one sort or another, the experiences we have are something else. In particular for me, the gap I experienced during surgery was most interesting. Did I in fact experience it? Was it an experience? Was it pure being? Like TC, but lasts for hours but has no sense of time. Then there is the experience that everything has an equal value of consciousness, which in some way, seems redundant to say there is some value called consciousness that is somehow distinct from any kind of experience. To me consciousness = being, and this contradicts the idea that consciousness can be snuffed out by destroying the brain. But then when the brain is largely deactivated by anaesthesia there is nothing, or is there? Because that gap has a value, at least in retrospect in memory of its having been there. It is a paradox. At least intellectually it is a paradox, and perhaps leaving it as a mystery on the level of the mind can leave one settled. Ever wonder what a neo-Darwinist atheist would experience in GC? (Assuming GC is a real state of experience) I came across some web pages discussing Nagel's book: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/ferguson-on-nagel.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-i.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-ii.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iii.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iv.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-v.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-vi.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/pummeled_with_p068931.html http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/35163-mind-and-cosmos-why-the-materialist-neo-darwinian-conception-of-nature-is-almost-certainly-false/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Yep, I still think it's possible to set boundaries without using potentially harmful language. In this I prefer to err on the side of being too gentle than too harsh even if I have to fake it in public and work on it in private or with my counselor. That seems adult to me. From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were more comfortable with. I have no idea what your point is here. I think people react to Barry as individuals, not because of how I react to him. Maybe you're the exception, though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Fuck that! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yep, I still think it's possible to set boundaries without using potentially harmful language. In this I prefer to err on the side of being too gentle than too harsh even if I have to fake it in public and work on it in private or with my counselor. That seems adult to me. From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were more
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
yes, yes dear Doc, whatever floats your boat! From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:19 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi Fuck that! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yep, I still think it's possible to set boundaries without using potentially harmful language. In this I prefer to err on the side of being too gentle than too harsh even if I have to fake it in public and work on it in private or with my counselor. That seems adult to me. From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind. I would assume that those who thought you were would
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
(Wo)Man Overboard!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: yes, yes dear Doc, whatever floats your boat! From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:19 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  Fuck that! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yep, I still think it's possible to set boundaries without using potentially harmful language. In this I prefer to err on the side of being too gentle than too harsh even if I have to fake it in public and work on it in private or with my counselor. That seems adult to me. From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi àSometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi Ãâà--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Well, surf's up! why stay in boat?! cowabunga! From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:34 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi (Wo)Man Overboard!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: yes, yes dear Doc, whatever floats your boat! From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:19 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  Fuck that! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yep, I still think it's possible to set boundaries without using potentially harmful language. In this I prefer to err on the side of being too gentle than too harsh even if I have to fake it in public and work on it in private or with my counselor. That seems adult to me. From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
It's nice to see you working on being an adult, Share. As an adult, one must always be careful not to be too sanctimonious. From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi Yep, I still think it's possible to set boundaries without using potentially harmful language. In this I prefer to err on the side of being too gentle than too harsh even if I have to fake it in public and work on it in private or with my counselor. That seems adult to me. From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Share, like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrXZ_Mdehw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrXZ_Mdehw *snort --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: It's nice to see you working on being an adult, Share.  As an adult, one must always be careful not to be too sanctimonious.  From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  Yep, I still think it's possible to set boundaries without using potentially harmful language. In this I prefer to err on the side of being too gentle than too harsh even if I have to fake it in public and work on it in private or with my counselor. That seems adult to me. From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Love that - there are times when nothing will do but the word fuck - one of my favorites, although I watch my language these days. :) :) From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:48 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi Share, like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrXZ_Mdehw *snort --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: It's nice to see you working on being an adult, Share.  As an adult, one must always be careful not to be too sanctimonious.  From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  Yep, I still think it's possible to set boundaries without using potentially harmful language. In this I prefer to err on the side of being too gentle than too harsh even if I have to fake it in public and work on it in private or with my counselor. That seems adult to me. From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Ann, Buck definitely gives a unique impression online. In person he's very affable and quick witted and open minded. I miss his presence here and haven't seen him at the health food store recently either. As for liking his preference for posting limit of 35 per week, not so much. From: Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:01 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: To make the question more precise, for any given person on FFL, in your own estimation, based on the replies you get and the posts directed to you either directly or indirectly, is there a range somewhere within 0% to 100% for which you feel you can accurately estimate or guesstimate the motives a person has in making such a post? I would assume that the percentage would vary with the person. If I may put in my two cents here: This is an interesting question but I think everyone in answering someone's post evaluates where that person is 'coming from' when posting something. How sincere are they? How much are they trying to push buttons? To what degree does a poster really not know the answer to something and is merely looking for attention? Is the poster open to whatever feedback they are presumably asking you for? All of these things and many, many more are analyzed, consciously or unconsciously, when deciding whether to reply to someone or not. Having assessed all these things a response will be forthcoming. I think that I can accurately assess where a person is 'coming from' about 90% of the time. Part of this is past history watching various people interact and knowing who they like, who they don't like and how they tend to communicate - their style, their tools, their verbal weaponry, their personality as it appears here at FFL. Buck is one of the few who is the most mysterious of anybody to me. Those who know him personally will know what he is all about but based on his FFL presence I really couldn't tell you with any real accuracy who he is. That is a pretty good percentage. I could never claim to scope out someone that well, I have to hedge my bets when I try to do that. I was never good at it. About Buck. Yes, he is rather unusual. I tend to think of him as something out the mid-19th century, way before even my time. Share said something about meeting Buck; I got the impression he had the same effect in person. As I asked in portions of this post snipped away here these questions of Judy, I do not know whether I will get a reasoned reply or I should put on body armour, or take a vacation to Madagascar. Generally I get the impression she is irritated with me most of the time. But I really am not good at this. Aww, Xeno. Don't worry. Judy isn't THAT scary. She is sharp as a tack, quick as a whip and definitely doesn't seem to suffer fools very well but I sense her heart is actually deep and true and very red. I think her bark is worse than her bite and she can drop her annoyance quickly and easily. I love that she can be downright ruthless one moment and be very happy to engage positively and enthusiastically with the same person the next moment. Just don't lie to her, try and manipulate a situation or act in a way that indicates laziness or sloppiness with regard to posting history and assertions thereof. She'll get you every time. Here is the thing, I would rather get a whupping by Ms Stein than a spit ball in the face by a few others around here.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Whoops! XENO, Buck definitely gives a unique impression online. In person I've found him to be very affable and quick witted and open minded. I miss his presence here and haven't seen him at the health food store recently either. As for liking his preference for posting limit of 35 per week, not so much. From: Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:01 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: To make the question more precise, for any given person on FFL, in your own estimation, based on the replies you get and the posts directed to you either directly or indirectly, is there a range somewhere within 0% to 100% for which you feel you can accurately estimate or guesstimate the motives a person has in making such a post? I would assume that the percentage would vary with the person. If I may put in my two cents here: This is an interesting question but I think everyone in answering someone's post evaluates where that person is 'coming from' when posting something. How sincere are they? How much are they trying to push buttons? To what degree does a poster really not know the answer to something and is merely looking for attention? Is the poster open to whatever feedback they are presumably asking you for? All of these things and many, many more are analyzed, consciously or unconsciously, when deciding whether to reply to someone or not. Having assessed all these things a response will be forthcoming. I think that I can accurately assess where a person is 'coming from' about 90% of the time. Part of this is past history watching various people interact and knowing who they like, who they don't like and how they tend to communicate - their style, their tools, their verbal weaponry, their personality as it appears here at FFL. Buck is one of the few who is the most mysterious of anybody to me. Those who know him personally will know what he is all about but based on his FFL presence I really couldn't tell you with any real accuracy who he is. That is a pretty good percentage. I could never claim to scope out someone that well, I have to hedge my bets when I try to do that. I was never good at it. About Buck. Yes, he is rather unusual. I tend to think of him as something out the mid-19th century, way before even my time. Share said something about meeting Buck; I got the impression he had the same effect in person. As I asked in portions of this post snipped away here these questions of Judy, I do not know whether I will get a reasoned reply or I should put on body armour, or take a vacation to Madagascar. Generally I get the impression she is irritated with me most of the time. But I really am not good at this. Aww, Xeno. Don't worry. Judy isn't THAT scary. She is sharp as a tack, quick as a whip and definitely doesn't seem to suffer fools very well but I sense her heart is actually deep and true and very red. I think her bark is worse than her bite and she can drop her annoyance quickly and easily. I love that she can be downright ruthless one moment and be very happy to engage positively and enthusiastically with the same person the next moment. Just don't lie to her, try and manipulate a situation or act in a way that indicates laziness or sloppiness with regard to posting history and assertions thereof. She'll get you every time. Here is the thing, I would rather get a whupping by Ms Stein than a spit ball in the face by a few others around here.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were more comfortable with. I have no idea what your point is here. I think people react to Barry as individuals, not because of how I react to him. Maybe you're the exception, though.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Xeno, turq is kind of like a big old bear with a thorn in its paw. BUT when he wrote that blasted blasting post, maybe he was also a hungry, wounded bear, hungry for what he thinks of as good writing. What baffles me is why he didn't simply ignore my offending posts! Anyway, I shall keep my psychological speculations to myself. At least, for now (-: From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 6:36 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were more comfortable with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were more comfortable with. I have no idea what your point is here. I think people react to Barry as individuals, not because of how I react to him. Maybe you're the exception, though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
OK, I am genuinely curious, Jim -- I have always enjoyed respectful and heartfelt conversations with you, and you seem to understand Judy and Ravi. I do get your saying Ravi has a bug up his ass, but what boundary of Judy's did I cross, other than trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi, to get anointed with the most egregious ego I have ever seen, twice, followed by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill? In what way was this speaking my language? Again, on some levels this I find this very funny, but on others I do not. What I have learned from it is to keep them both at arm's length, because after having opened my heart to them as true friends, the intense physical shock felt like an actual heart attack. As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. Go figure! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Rory! I'm so glad you're ok. And yes, words can carry great power because they ride on waves of energy, I guess. And I've also found it's good to keep some posters at arm's length. BTW, I've had a summer cold the last few days but will visit you all in Revs when I'm pretty sure it's no longer contagious. Hope you and Rena and the whole banana gang are well and happy. Share From: RoryGoff roryg...@hotmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi OK, I am genuinely curious, Jim -- I have always enjoyed respectful and heartfelt conversations with you, and you seem to understand Judy and Ravi. I do get your saying Ravi has a bug up his ass, but what boundary of Judy's did I cross, other than trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi, to get anointed with the most egregious ego I have ever seen, twice, followed by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill? In what way was this speaking my language? Again, on some levels this I find this very funny, but on others I do not. What I have learned from it is to keep them both at arm's length, because after having opened my heart to them as true friends, the intense physical shock felt like an actual heart attack. As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. Go figure! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
May I? Thanks. Dear Rory, Acid reflux can give similar symptoms to a heart attack. When the body gets over stimulated either by and/or with undigested foods, or coffee,(any stimulant) even over alkalinity can create imbalance and make the symptoms you described happen, along with reading your heart's pain, the acid increases in a fear, or the feeling of a let down environment, such as what appears as harsh words or things one did not want to hear or read. It is true, it could be Ravi and Judy appeared to let you down, at the same time, you were reading, and most likely sitting when you read what they wrote that may have appeared to feel like hurt to you, but in the same instance, there may have been this digestive problem existing. The body is still and trapped gas cannot move. Then what the mind is thinking as you are reading what hit you negative, may have been the body was already engaged in trying to process food, as we get older and I mean over 20 years old, we start to become more aware of abnormalities in our bodies and we all desire to fix that problem. Just like PMS with women, even with balance, there is a change in perception and behavior once a woman ovulates. The ego feels it gets punched when others first point out our behaviors, but when we let the love and trust and comfort deep inside of us open to others view of us, we can then find the answers by listening to them without being critical at their statements and grow. This whole FFL experience is only word play. :) Nice to see you back on here, Rory. -Obba --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: OK, I am genuinely curious, Jim -- I have always enjoyed respectful and heartfelt conversations with you, and you seem to understand Judy and Ravi. I do get your saying Ravi has a bug up his ass, but what boundary of Judy's did I cross, other than trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi, to get anointed with the most egregious ego I have ever seen, twice, followed by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill? In what way was this speaking my language? Again, on some levels this I find this very funny, but on others I do not. What I have learned from it is to keep them both at arm's length, because after having opened my heart to them as true friends, the intense physical shock felt like an actual heart attack. As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. Go figure! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. And mine!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Xeno, I know some posters both in person and online. And even when Van and I lived with each other, we emailed sometimes! As a result, I think we all see people through our filters even if we know them in person. But knowing someone in person over time is, I think, the most reliable way to really know them. And even that approach does not result in 100% accuracy all the time. Just part of the human condition I guess. From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 8:50 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi I could never claim to scope out someone that well, I have to hedge my bets when I try to do that. I was never good at it. About Buck. Yes, he is rather unusual. I tend to think of him as something out the mid-19th century, way before even my time. Share said something about meeting Buck; I got the impression he had the same effect in person. As I asked in portions of this post snipped away here these questions of Judy, I do not know whether I will get a reasoned reply or I should put on body armour, or take a vacation to Madagascar. Generally I get the impression she is irritated with me most of the time. But I really am not good at this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
DrD/Jim-- Rory has apparently chosen not to read my posts, so if I may, I'd like to ask you to pass this on to him: He has twice seriously misrepresented what I said to him. I corrected him the first time, and he appeared to understand and thanked me for the clarification. Then he misrepresented me again, the same way. I had to correct him again, but he didn't respond to that post, so I assume he didn't read it. Now, in his post to you, he's done it *again*, worse than before. He seems determined to take my comments about two very specific things he said as a total condemnation of him as a person, and that's just so wrong. *That* crosses a major boundary with me. Has nothing to do with Rory's trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi. That's insulting in and of itself, especially given that at one point I actually *defended* him from a nasty remark of Barry's. (I also supported him on more than one other occasion, but it seems he's wiped those from his mind as well.) This post to you, DrD, will be the only overture I'll make toward Rory. If he wants to straighten things out between us, it's up to him now. He's welcome to contact me via email if he would feel more comfortable talking privately. Thanks for your help. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: OK, I am genuinely curious, Jim -- I have always enjoyed respectful and heartfelt conversations with you, and you seem to understand Judy and Ravi. I do get your saying Ravi has a bug up his ass, but what boundary of Judy's did I cross, other than trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi, to get anointed with the most egregious ego I have ever seen, twice, followed by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill? In what way was this speaking my language? Again, on some levels this I find this very funny, but on others I do not. What I have learned from it is to keep them both at arm's length, because after having opened my heart to them as true friends, the intense physical shock felt like an actual heart attack. As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. Go figure! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Ahhh Sharester, I love it when you wax hypocritical. Smile Mary Mary quite contrary, How does your garden grow? With silver bells and cockle shells And pretty maids all in a row. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were more comfortable with. I have no idea what your point is here. I think people react to Barry as individuals, not because of how I react to him. Maybe you're the exception, though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. And mine! Me too! Rory, next time that happens, it most likely will, and since if appeared not life threatening by the emergency room doctors, as much as you may not be into over the counter medicine, take a couple of tums when it begins, and/or Mallox (however that is spelled). You will be amazed. Like serenity now! Seriously. Then go the the emergency room, if that does not help. I can't believe the hospital did not give you an ant-acid after doing those tests? Well, over a thousand dollar experience at the ER, with no findings can give one a heart attack when the bill arrives later... can sometimes be avoided with a 4.99 purchase of tums. Next time you get dizzy, pulse increases beyond normal like a coyote was chasing you, blood pressure skyrockets, and the feeling of impending doom sets in, (fear of death), you will thank me one day, for sharing this with you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Judy, I appreciate your overture. No, I was not reading any posts for a few days there -- I was otherwise occupied, what with the ER and so on, and trying to take it easy -- and have not been following things religiously since, so I must have missed your post. I did not mean to imply here that you had always condemned me as a person, and in my post to you I believe I said I appreciate much of what you do here, and that includes your overall relationship with me, up until a few days ago. That's why I had opened my heart to you in the first place. I did appreciate your clarification that your responses only applied to specific things I had just said. Nonetheless, their sheer unexpected brutality hit me very hard. And I still don't understand what it was I said that caused you to twice call me the most egregious ego you had ever encountered -- almost a redundancy there, in a way, as every ego is egregious, standing out from the crowd -- followed in quick succession by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: DrD/Jim-- Rory has apparently chosen not to read my posts, so if I may, I'd like to ask you to pass this on to him: He has twice seriously misrepresented what I said to him. I corrected him the first time, and he appeared to understand and thanked me for the clarification. Then he misrepresented me again, the same way. I had to correct him again, but he didn't respond to that post, so I assume he didn't read it. Now, in his post to you, he's done it *again*, worse than before. He seems determined to take my comments about two very specific things he said as a total condemnation of him as a person, and that's just so wrong. *That* crosses a major boundary with me. Has nothing to do with Rory's trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi. That's insulting in and of itself, especially given that at one point I actually *defended* him from a nasty remark of Barry's. (I also supported him on more than one other occasion, but it seems he's wiped those from his mind as well.) This post to you, DrD, will be the only overture I'll make toward Rory. If he wants to straighten things out between us, it's up to him now. He's welcome to contact me via email if he would feel more comfortable talking privately. Thanks for your help. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: OK, I am genuinely curious, Jim -- I have always enjoyed respectful and heartfelt conversations with you, and you seem to understand Judy and Ravi. I do get your saying Ravi has a bug up his ass, but what boundary of Judy's did I cross, other than trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi, to get anointed with the most egregious ego I have ever seen, twice, followed by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill? In what way was this speaking my language? Again, on some levels this I find this very funny, but on others I do not. What I have learned from it is to keep them both at arm's length, because after having opened my heart to them as true friends, the intense physical shock felt like an actual heart attack. As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. Go figure! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. And mine! Me too! Rory, next time that happens, it most likely will, and since if appeared not life threatening by the emergency room doctors, as much as you may not be into over the counter medicine, take a couple of tums when it begins, and/or Mallox (however that is spelled). You will be amazed. Like serenity now! Seriously. Then go the the emergency room, if that does not help. I can't believe the hospital did not give you an ant-acid after doing those tests? Well, over a thousand dollar experience at the ER, with no findings can give one a heart attack when the bill arrives later... can sometimes be avoided with a 4.99 purchase of tums. Next time you get dizzy, pulse increases beyond normal like a coyote was chasing you, blood pressure skyrockets, and the feeling of impending doom sets in, (fear of death), you will thank me one day, for sharing this with you. Thank you, Share, and Alex, and Obba, and thank you for your advice! The symptoms were INTENSE solar-plexus pain/pressure and a completely numb left arm. I never get indigestion (physically anyway), but it was the left arm that really worried me. I took two Bayer aspirin immediately and the symptoms subsided, but 2 days later I was still experiencing light-headedness, weakness, dizziness, and tingling and numbness in the extremities and lips, so some friends persuaded me to go the clinic to check it out. I am still experiencing them now, FWIW, to a much lesser extent...You really think Maalox is the answer?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Rory, do you remember Pascal, the former Waking Down teacher from France? She once told me that coughing can halt a heart attack because it open the vessels or something like that. Also there are accupressure points that one can press on, like the tip of the pointer finger. One doc here diagnosed a friend as having indigestion but indeed she was having a heart attack. So I think the more common symptoms might not show up for everyone. Always better to be safe, so glad you are. From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 9:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. And mine! Me too! Rory, next time that happens, it most likely will, and since if appeared not life threatening by the emergency room doctors, as much as you may not be into over the counter medicine, take a couple of tums when it begins, and/or Mallox (however that is spelled). You will be amazed. Like serenity now! Seriously. Then go the the emergency room, if that does not help. I can't believe the hospital did not give you an ant-acid after doing those tests? Well, over a thousand dollar experience at the ER, with no findings can give one a heart attack when the bill arrives later... can sometimes be avoided with a 4.99 purchase of tums. Next time you get dizzy, pulse increases beyond normal like a coyote was chasing you, blood pressure skyrockets, and the feeling of impending doom sets in, (fear of death), you will thank me one day, for sharing this with you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Hi Rory! I am glad to hear all is OK with you. Yeah, expectations can be tough to manage, especially when you are expecting friendliness, and get back something else. I don't recall the exact ins and outs of the conversations between you and Ravi, and Judy, so I'll just share my experience on expectations. In my past career of managing and focusing teams on objectives, I had to be very clear about my intentions before engaging others, to avoid confusion, and a loss of momentum on the project. Like that, if I am clear on my intention, to spread love in the world, for example, then I am also clear on what to do, should I encounter an obstacle. I no longer assume anything beyond the moment itself. If I need more info, I will ask for it. Other than that, it always seems to resolve into, take it easy, take it as it comes, without diminishing clarity, intention, or the ability to modify my approach, instantly. No attachment. As for your strategy in dealing with Judy and Ravi (arm's length), whatever works, though I find, personally, that my curiosity always gets the better of me - lol. Thanks for sharing this with me, Rory! Hope you are chillin' today. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: OK, I am genuinely curious, Jim -- I have always enjoyed respectful and heartfelt conversations with you, and you seem to understand Judy and Ravi. I do get your saying Ravi has a bug up his ass, but what boundary of Judy's did I cross, other than trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi, to get anointed with the most egregious ego I have ever seen, twice, followed by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill? In what way was this speaking my language? Again, on some levels this I find this very funny, but on others I do not. What I have learned from it is to keep them both at arm's length, because after having opened my heart to them as true friends, the intense physical shock felt like an actual heart attack. As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. Go figure! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Thanks, Jim! I appreciate your response, as always. Yes, those unconscious expectations are doubtless the ones that got me -- just utterly shocked by how utterly physically shocked I was. It is not like I am unfamiliar with Fairfield Life! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Hi Rory! I am glad to hear all is OK with you. Yeah, expectations can be tough to manage, especially when you are expecting friendliness, and get back something else. I don't recall the exact ins and outs of the conversations between you and Ravi, and Judy, so I'll just share my experience on expectations. In my past career of managing and focusing teams on objectives, I had to be very clear about my intentions before engaging others, to avoid confusion, and a loss of momentum on the project. Like that, if I am clear on my intention, to spread love in the world, for example, then I am also clear on what to do, should I encounter an obstacle. I no longer assume anything beyond the moment itself. If I need more info, I will ask for it. Other than that, it always seems to resolve into, take it easy, take it as it comes, without diminishing clarity, intention, or the ability to modify my approach, instantly. No attachment. As for your strategy in dealing with Judy and Ravi (arm's length), whatever works, though I find, personally, that my curiosity always gets the better of me - lol. Thanks for sharing this with me, Rory! Hope you are chillin' today. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: OK, I am genuinely curious, Jim -- I have always enjoyed respectful and heartfelt conversations with you, and you seem to understand Judy and Ravi. I do get your saying Ravi has a bug up his ass, but what boundary of Judy's did I cross, other than trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi, to get anointed with the most egregious ego I have ever seen, twice, followed by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill? In what way was this speaking my language? Again, on some levels this I find this very funny, but on others I do not. What I have learned from it is to keep them both at arm's length, because after having opened my heart to them as true friends, the intense physical shock felt like an actual heart attack. As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. Go figure! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff wrote: As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. And mine! Me too! Rory, next time that happens, it most likely will, and since if appeared not life threatening by the emergency room doctors, as much as you may not be into over the counter medicine, take a couple of tums when it begins, and/or Mallox (however that is spelled). You will be amazed. Like serenity now! Seriously. Then go the the emergency room, if that does not help. I can't believe the hospital did not give you an ant-acid after doing those tests? Well, over a thousand dollar experience at the ER, with no findings can give one a heart attack when the bill arrives later... can sometimes be avoided with a 4.99 purchase of tums. Next time you get dizzy, pulse increases beyond normal like a coyote was chasing you, blood pressure skyrockets, and the feeling of impending doom sets in, (fear of death), you will thank me one day, for sharing this with you. This is an excellent synopsis of menopause. And of course, it is like a endless loop: symptoms - anxiety - more symptoms - anxiety -sense of doom...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Rory, it's been my experience recently that dizzyness can also result from not enough protein. No kidding. As for numbness, yeah that would be scary. But that can be pinched nerve, nadis opening up, etc. Anyway, good to have it checked. Also great if you can release a la Release Technique, any fear that might be coming along with the physical symptoms. Meanwhile as I'm sure you know, Love's got you by the scruff of the neck and won't let go (-: From: RoryGoff roryg...@hotmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 10:12 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. And mine! Me too! Rory, next time that happens, it most likely will, and since if appeared not life threatening by the emergency room doctors, as much as you may not be into over the counter medicine, take a couple of tums when it begins, and/or Mallox (however that is spelled). You will be amazed. Like serenity now! Seriously. Then go the the emergency room, if that does not help. I can't believe the hospital did not give you an ant-acid after doing those tests? Well, over a thousand dollar experience at the ER, with no findings can give one a heart attack when the bill arrives later... can sometimes be avoided with a 4.99 purchase of tums. Next time you get dizzy, pulse increases beyond normal like a coyote was chasing you, blood pressure skyrockets, and the feeling of impending doom sets in, (fear of death), you will thank me one day, for sharing this with you. Thank you, Share, and Alex, and Obba, and thank you for your advice! The symptoms were INTENSE solar-plexus pain/pressure and a completely numb left arm. I never get indigestion (physically anyway), but it was the left arm that really worried me. I took two Bayer aspirin immediately and the symptoms subsided, but 2 days later I was still experiencing light-headedness, weakness, dizziness, and tingling and numbness in the extremities and lips, so some friends persuaded me to go the clinic to check it out. I am still experiencing them now, FWIW, to a much lesser extent...You really think Maalox is the answer?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff wrote: As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. And mine! Me too! Rory, next time that happens, it most likely will, and since if appeared not life threatening by the emergency room doctors, as much as you may not be into over the counter medicine, take a couple of tums when it begins, and/or Mallox (however that is spelled). You will be amazed. Like serenity now! Seriously. Then go the the emergency room, if that does not help. I can't believe the hospital did not give you an ant-acid after doing those tests? Well, over a thousand dollar experience at the ER, with no findings can give one a heart attack when the bill arrives later... can sometimes be avoided with a 4.99 purchase of tums. Next time you get dizzy, pulse increases beyond normal like a coyote was chasing you, blood pressure skyrockets, and the feeling of impending doom sets in, (fear of death), you will thank me one day, for sharing this with you. Thank you, Share, and Alex, and Obba, and thank you for your advice! The symptoms were INTENSE solar-plexus pain/pressure and a completely numb left arm. I never get indigestion (physically anyway), but it was the left arm that really worried me. I took two Bayer aspirin immediately and the symptoms subsided, but 2 days later I was still experiencing light-headedness, weakness, dizziness, and tingling and numbness in the extremities and lips, so some friends persuaded me to go the clinic to check it out. I am still experiencing them now, FWIW, to a much lesser extent...You really think Maalox is the answer? http://www.health.com/health/condition-article/0,,20278772,00.html http://www.health.com/health/condition-article/0,,20278772,00.html Yep. If the doctors could find nothing, then try it. I had the same thing happen similar and on and off for years. I thought it was mental stress, heart attack, or worse. Indigestion you say you do not get? How do you know? One does not have to have symptoms like the TV commercial advertisements say. Your belly does not have to feel pain or discomfort to have indigestion. A build up of gas adds pressure to the vagus nerve.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: Judy, I appreciate your overture. No, I was not reading any posts for a few days there -- I was otherwise occupied, what with the ER and so on, and trying to take it easy -- and have not been following things religiously since, so I must have missed your post. I did not mean to imply here that you had always condemned me as a person, and in my post to you I believe I said I appreciate much of what you do here, and that includes your overall relationship with me, up until a few days ago. That's why I had opened my heart to you in the first place. I did appreciate your clarification that your responses only applied to specific things I had just said. Nonetheless, their sheer unexpected brutality hit me very hard. Um, yeah, except that you told me (1) your ego got a great kick out of my kicking its ass. You also (2) thanked me and said It's (eventually) always a pleasure to see ourselves as others see us :-), *and* (3) that I might be right about your egotism and that the thought [filled you] with bliss (three separate posts). None of those remarks seems consistent with sheer unexpected brutality hitting you very hard. Maybe if you'd showed me how you were *really* feeling at the time of that first exchange, I'd have been more gentle in following up. But you know, Rory, when you present yourself as invulnerable, it sort of acts as encouragement for people to say exactly what they think without having to worry about your feelings. Anyway, now we know that whatever state of consciousness you're in, it doesn't protect you from being terribly wounded by negative opinions of you. And I still don't understand what it was I said that caused you to twice call me the most egregious ego you had ever encountered You could have asked, Rory. Instead, you seemed to welcome my comments. In any case, I never called *you* the most egregious ego, I called remarks you made the most egregious *display of ego* I had ever encountered. That you occasionally display an ego doesn't mean that's all you are. -- almost a redundancy there, in a way, as every ego is egregious, standing out from the crowd -- followed in quick succession by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill. Actually Bullcrap was first, referring to--well, you can look the posts up if you're interested. I'm sure you won't, but you really should go back and look at all those posts before your misinterpretations get engraved in stone in your memory (and before you forget about my *supportive* comments). But maybe it's too late anyway. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: DrD/Jim-- Rory has apparently chosen not to read my posts, so if I may, I'd like to ask you to pass this on to him: He has twice seriously misrepresented what I said to him. I corrected him the first time, and he appeared to understand and thanked me for the clarification. Then he misrepresented me again, the same way. I had to correct him again, but he didn't respond to that post, so I assume he didn't read it. Now, in his post to you, he's done it *again*, worse than before. He seems determined to take my comments about two very specific things he said as a total condemnation of him as a person, and that's just so wrong. *That* crosses a major boundary with me. Has nothing to do with Rory's trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi. That's insulting in and of itself, especially given that at one point I actually *defended* him from a nasty remark of Barry's. (I also supported him on more than one other occasion, but it seems he's wiped those from his mind as well.) This post to you, DrD, will be the only overture I'll make toward Rory. If he wants to straighten things out between us, it's up to him now. He's welcome to contact me via email if he would feel more comfortable talking privately. Thanks for your help. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: OK, I am genuinely curious, Jim -- I have always enjoyed respectful and heartfelt conversations with you, and you seem to understand Judy and Ravi. I do get your saying Ravi has a bug up his ass, but what boundary of Judy's did I cross, other than trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi, to get anointed with the most egregious ego I have ever seen, twice, followed by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill? In what way was this speaking my language? Again, on some levels this I find this very funny, but on others I do not. What I have learned from it is to keep them both at arm's length, because after having opened my heart to them as true friends, the intense physical shock felt like an actual heart attack. As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Xeno, turq is kind of like a big old bear with a thorn in its paw. BUT when he wrote that blasted blasting post, maybe he was also a hungry, wounded bear, hungry for what he thinks of as good writing. What baffles me is why he didn't simply ignore my offending posts! Anyway, I shall keep my psychological speculations to myself. Share, whew! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INii76p61i0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INii76p61i0 At least, for now (-: From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 6:36 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:  For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were more comfortable with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
I'd like to, but what happens if the teacher catches me passing notes? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: DrD/Jim-- Rory has apparently chosen not to read my posts, so if I may, I'd like to ask you to pass this on to him: He has twice seriously misrepresented what I said to him. I corrected him the first time, and he appeared to understand and thanked me for the clarification. Then he misrepresented me again, the same way. I had to correct him again, but he didn't respond to that post, so I assume he didn't read it. Now, in his post to you, he's done it *again*, worse than before. He seems determined to take my comments about two very specific things he said as a total condemnation of him as a person, and that's just so wrong. *That* crosses a major boundary with me. Has nothing to do with Rory's trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi. That's insulting in and of itself, especially given that at one point I actually *defended* him from a nasty remark of Barry's. (I also supported him on more than one other occasion, but it seems he's wiped those from his mind as well.) This post to you, DrD, will be the only overture I'll make toward Rory. If he wants to straighten things out between us, it's up to him now. He's welcome to contact me via email if he would feel more comfortable talking privately. Thanks for your help. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: OK, I am genuinely curious, Jim -- I have always enjoyed respectful and heartfelt conversations with you, and you seem to understand Judy and Ravi. I do get your saying Ravi has a bug up his ass, but what boundary of Judy's did I cross, other than trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi, to get anointed with the most egregious ego I have ever seen, twice, followed by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill? In what way was this speaking my language? Again, on some levels this I find this very funny, but on others I do not. What I have learned from it is to keep them both at arm's length, because after having opened my heart to them as true friends, the intense physical shock felt like an actual heart attack. As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. Go figure! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
No, it's not too late, Judy; thank you; I much appreciate it. Yes, part of me did get a kick out it all, and it was blissful -- and then my physiology got a KICK out of it all on a whole new level! :-D You are quite right about my projecting an invulnerability; that is indeed a part of me, but (obviously) not the whole me. Some election results from outlying precincts come in a bit later, particularly where my body is concerned, and as I have found, they can be devastatingly uncompromising. I went to sleep that night with subtle pyrotechnics in the heart, and awoke at 5 with the full-on physical symptoms. But I will try to be more attuned faster to the outlying results and reflect a more immediately nuanced response in the future. I remember your supportive comments as well, of course. You are right, I have no impulse to go back and look, but if memory serves (which it may not), the Bullcrap seemed to be in response to my saying something like, what I say is not that important; what is important is the energetic connection, meaning the healing or assimilation that takes place in me (as a result of an interaction). Does that sound about right? Because I did mean that in all sincerity. I do hold my primary reason for being here as a chance for me to undergo energetic healing and assimilation. But I will (if possible) do it more cautiously and with more sensitivity, I think. As to whatever state of consciousness I might or might not be in, I have no idea about any of that; it's not currently of particular importance or interest to me. Thanks again. *L*L*L* R. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: Judy, I appreciate your overture. No, I was not reading any posts for a few days there -- I was otherwise occupied, what with the ER and so on, and trying to take it easy -- and have not been following things religiously since, so I must have missed your post. I did not mean to imply here that you had always condemned me as a person, and in my post to you I believe I said I appreciate much of what you do here, and that includes your overall relationship with me, up until a few days ago. That's why I had opened my heart to you in the first place. I did appreciate your clarification that your responses only applied to specific things I had just said. Nonetheless, their sheer unexpected brutality hit me very hard. Um, yeah, except that you told me (1) your ego got a great kick out of my kicking its ass. You also (2) thanked me and said It's (eventually) always a pleasure to see ourselves as others see us :-), *and* (3) that I might be right about your egotism and that the thought [filled you] with bliss (three separate posts). None of those remarks seems consistent with sheer unexpected brutality hitting you very hard. Maybe if you'd showed me how you were *really* feeling at the time of that first exchange, I'd have been more gentle in following up. But you know, Rory, when you present yourself as invulnerable, it sort of acts as encouragement for people to say exactly what they think without having to worry about your feelings. Anyway, now we know that whatever state of consciousness you're in, it doesn't protect you from being terribly wounded by negative opinions of you. And I still don't understand what it was I said that caused you to twice call me the most egregious ego you had ever encountered You could have asked, Rory. Instead, you seemed to welcome my comments. In any case, I never called *you* the most egregious ego, I called remarks you made the most egregious *display of ego* I had ever encountered. That you occasionally display an ego doesn't mean that's all you are. -- almost a redundancy there, in a way, as every ego is egregious, standing out from the crowd -- followed in quick succession by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill. Actually Bullcrap was first, referring to--well, you can look the posts up if you're interested. I'm sure you won't, but you really should go back and look at all those posts before your misinterpretations get engraved in stone in your memory (and before you forget about my *supportive* comments). But maybe it's too late anyway. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: DrD/Jim-- Rory has apparently chosen not to read my posts, so if I may, I'd like to ask you to pass this on to him: He has twice seriously misrepresented what I said to him. I corrected him the first time, and he appeared to understand and thanked me for the clarification. Then he misrepresented me again, the same way. I had to correct him again, but he didn't respond to that post, so I assume he didn't read it. Now, in his post to you, he's done it *again*, worse than before. He seems determined to take my
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: You are welcome! My body surprises me, unpleasantly sometimes. The best thing to heal it is lie down, and let the attention go to the pain, without thinking about it. Yes, that is my normal approach, too. This one was Abbie Normal :-D Off the subject, but a funny story/parable - Been renovating my standalone garage, including removing a huge wooden built-in cabinet - Lots of wood and pokey nails. I left the remains on the backyard walkway, between my studio and the house. Walking in at night, it was in deep shadow, and forgetting it was there, I stumbled into it, and my first thought was, Wow, that shadow is really hard!. Luckily no injuries.:-) Ha! Wow. Good one. Glad to hear no injuries, Jim!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Hi, Share! Yes, I have been eating plenty of protein, never take caffeine or nicotine or medications (those Aspirin were the first I ever took in my adult life), etc., drink plenty of fluids, practice breathing, loving, hands-on healing, and so on... And sometimes these things are a little slow to respond to our patented techniques. I have actually been re-examining everything lately. Yes! Scruff of the neck. Well put, thanks. *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Rory, it's been my experience recently that dizzyness can also result from not enough protein. No kidding. As for numbness, yeah that would be scary. But that can be pinched nerve, nadis opening up, etc. Anyway, good to have it checked. Also great if you can release a la Release Technique, any fear that might be coming along with the physical symptoms. Meanwhile as I'm sure you know, Love's got you by the scruff of the neck and won't let go (-: From: RoryGoff rorygoff@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 10:12 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. And mine! Me too! Rory, next time that happens, it most likely will, and since if appeared not life threatening by the emergency room doctors, as much as you may not be into over the counter medicine, take a couple of tums when it begins, and/or Mallox (however that is spelled). You will be amazed. Like serenity now! Seriously. Then go the the emergency room, if that does not help. I can't believe the hospital did not give you an ant-acid after doing those tests? Well, over a thousand dollar experience at the ER, with no findings can give one a heart attack when the bill arrives later... can sometimes be avoided with a 4.99 purchase of tums. Next time you get dizzy, pulse increases beyond normal like a coyote was chasing you, blood pressure skyrockets, and the feeling of impending doom sets in, (fear of death), you will thank me one day, for sharing this with you. Thank you, Share, and Alex, and Obba, and thank you for your advice! The symptoms were INTENSE solar-plexus pain/pressure and a completely numb left arm. I never get indigestion (physically anyway), but it was the left arm that really worried me. I took two Bayer aspirin immediately and the symptoms subsided, but 2 days later I was still experiencing light-headedness, weakness, dizziness, and tingling and numbness in the extremities and lips, so some friends persuaded me to go the clinic to check it out. I am still experiencing them now, FWIW, to a much lesser extent...You really think Maalox is the answer?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Interesting the question M answers at the end - A TM teacher says that with TM there is no Guru (master) - Chela (disciple) relationship. M responds that it is more like a history professor, a purely instructional relationship with the student, otherwise the whole complication would be unscientific - LOL. Good stuff. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: It might be the case. I always thought MMY was pretty good at stringing sentences together, at least in short bursts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRSvW9Ml9DQ L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/ You'll think a simplistic AI is totally enlightened... ...or something. [Apparently fooled Chopra] What makes you think that Maharishi was doing anything other than this same parroted pattern-matching? This is *exactly* the kind of thing I was referring to earlier as spiritual teacher schtick and that Curtis referred to as a language form. And Maharishi was *just* as likely to use it as Chopra. [ Apparently that fooled you, and many others ] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ no_reply@ wrote: Chopra has made it very clear he would be nothing without Maharishi, there would certainly have been no primordial sound meditation. At least he is honest about it unlike certain others. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-maharishi-years-the-u_b_86412.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. Oops, Dr. are you a TM teacher? I can't believe you say all this. To meet somebody at the level of their consciousness is IMHO quite different from responding to their tone or emotional level. In fact Maharishi always advised lecturers to the opposite, never respond to the harsh tone of a questioner or the aggression, but rather go to the core, and try to stay calm, and meet the person at the heart level. Trying to be positive, and not being taken in by negativity, and thus contributing to it, was a basic movement mantra. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Rory - I'm glad to hear you are doing well. I can't believe I'm now saying this but please leave me out of your posts because now I'm worried about your extreme fragility and my bug up my ass brutality sending you to hospital again.(I'm extremely serious, concerned yet also find disturbingly hilarious) Let me say this - I now realize that there are physical implications in questioning people's delusional beliefs as well and I wish to leave you alone and it may be in your best interest to leave me out because I'm extremely allergic to dishonesty and people misquoting, misrepresenting me and then I will be forced to respond. A good thing now is you can once again start claims of your invincibility, enlightenment, discuss your philosophy and bananagrams and I will not even bother. Not for a while, not after all this drama. Ravi. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:57 AM, RoryGoff roryg...@hotmail.com wrote: OK, I am genuinely curious, Jim -- I have always enjoyed respectful and heartfelt conversations with you, and you seem to understand Judy and Ravi. I do get your saying Ravi has a bug up his ass, but what boundary of Judy's did I cross, other than trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi, to get anointed with the most egregious ego I have ever seen, twice, followed by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill? In what way was this speaking my language? Again, on some levels this I find this very funny, but on others I do not. What I have learned from it is to keep them both at arm's length, because after having opened my heart to them as true friends, the intense physical shock felt like an actual heart attack. As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. Go figure! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Thank you, Ravi. Yes, disturbingly hilarious about sums it up from this end, too; nicely put. I have no idea what things you think I believe, delusional or (if there is such a thing) otherwise, and I have no idea what on earth made you think I believe them, but I assure you I consciously hold no beliefs to be ultimately true. I will be happy to leave you out of my posts from here on. Peace be unto you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Rory - I'm glad to hear you are doing well. I can't believe I'm now saying this but please leave me out of your posts because now I'm worried about your extreme fragility and my bug up my ass brutality sending you to hospital again.(I'm extremely serious, concerned yet also find disturbingly hilarious) Let me say this - I now realize that there are physical implications in questioning people's delusional beliefs as well and I wish to leave you alone and it may be in your best interest to leave me out because I'm extremely allergic to dishonesty and people misquoting, misrepresenting me and then I will be forced to respond. A good thing now is you can once again start claims of your invincibility, enlightenment, discuss your philosophy and bananagrams and I will not even bother. Not for a while, not after all this drama. Ravi. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:57 AM, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: OK, I am genuinely curious, Jim -- I have always enjoyed respectful and heartfelt conversations with you, and you seem to understand Judy and Ravi. I do get your saying Ravi has a bug up his ass, but what boundary of Judy's did I cross, other than trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi, to get anointed with the most egregious ego I have ever seen, twice, followed by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill? In what way was this speaking my language? Again, on some levels this I find this very funny, but on others I do not. What I have learned from it is to keep them both at arm's length, because after having opened my heart to them as true friends, the intense physical shock felt like an actual heart attack. As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. Go figure! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi à --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Rory - You surely must mean - peace unto me in your last line right? Here's something that may help answer your question *Pocket dictionary of Mad Yogi's terms, Page 1* *Religious Delusional beliefs* - a set of beliefs, consisting of religious terms, myths, symbolism, archetypes, philosophy and/or paradigm that forms a person' narrative of his or her subjective, spiritual experiences which thereby leaves the person invulnerable to reality. Peace unto you - really. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:46 PM, RoryGoff roryg...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Thank you, Ravi. Yes, disturbingly hilarious about sums it up from this end, too; nicely put. I have no idea what things you think I believe, delusional or (if there is such a thing) otherwise, and I have no idea what on earth made you think I believe them, but I assure you I consciously hold no beliefs to be ultimately true. I will be happy to leave you out of my posts from here on. Peace be unto you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Rory - I'm glad to hear you are doing well. I can't believe I'm now saying this but please leave me out of your posts because now I'm worried about your extreme fragility and my bug up my ass brutality sending you to hospital again.(I'm extremely serious, concerned yet also find disturbingly hilarious) Let me say this - I now realize that there are physical implications in questioning people's delusional beliefs as well and I wish to leave you alone and it may be in your best interest to leave me out because I'm extremely allergic to dishonesty and people misquoting, misrepresenting me and then I will be forced to respond. A good thing now is you can once again start claims of your invincibility, enlightenment, discuss your philosophy and bananagrams and I will not even bother. Not for a while, not after all this drama. Ravi. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:57 AM, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: OK, I am genuinely curious, Jim -- I have always enjoyed respectful and heartfelt conversations with you, and you seem to understand Judy and Ravi. I do get your saying Ravi has a bug up his ass, but what boundary of Judy's did I cross, other than trying to have civil conversations with Turq and Ravi, to get anointed with the most egregious ego I have ever seen, twice, followed by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill? In what way was this speaking my language? Again, on some levels this I find this very funny, but on others I do not. What I have learned from it is to keep them both at arm's length, because after having opened my heart to them as true friends, the intense physical shock felt like an actual heart attack. As some of the symptoms persisted over several days I finally went to the clinic and they sent me to the ER, but the EKG, blood tests and lung X-rays (don't ask me why they felt those were necessary) came back clean, much to my and my wife's relief. Go figure! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
At rounding courses in the 1970s when we were shown videotapes of Maharishi there were often long pauses after a question was asked - and I mean really long pauses - before Maharishi came up with an answer. I used to feel the tension rising and sometimes said to myself: Christ! He's not going to be able to answer this one! Those clunky 70s video machines were pretty temperamental also. They must have been the first widely available to Joe Public. I had a rich (tax-avoidance specialist) brother-in-law who had one as a prized possession but for most people they would have been too pricey. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It might be the case. I always thought MMY was pretty good at stringing sentences together, at least in short bursts:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
I apologize - didn't mean to bring Maharishi into this. So, let's leave him out, and I'll stand by what I said. OK? No, I am not and never have been a TM teacher. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. Oops, Dr. are you a TM teacher? I can't believe you say all this. To meet somebody at the level of their consciousness is IMHO quite different from responding to their tone or emotional level. In fact Maharishi always advised lecturers to the opposite, never respond to the harsh tone of a questioner or the aggression, but rather go to the core, and try to stay calm, and meet the person at the heart level. Trying to be positive, and not being taken in by negativity, and thus contributing to it, was a basic movement mantra. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi Ãâ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were more comfortable with. I have no idea what your point is here. I think people react to Barry as individuals, not because of how I react to him. Maybe you're the exception, though.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
, much to my and my wife's relief. Go figure! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were more comfortable
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Seraphita s3raphita@... wrote: At rounding courses in the 1970s when we were shown videotapes of Maharishi there were often long pauses after a question was asked - and I mean really long pauses - before Maharishi came up with an answer. I used to feel the tension rising and sometimes said to myself: Christ! He's not going to be able to answer this one! LOL - That is funny! Can you imagine him looking up and saying, I got nuttin'... Those clunky 70s video machines were pretty temperamental also. They must have been the first widely available to Joe Public. I had a rich (tax-avoidance specialist) brother-in-law who had one as a prized possession but for most people they would have been too pricey. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It might be the case. I always thought MMY was pretty good at stringing sentences together, at least in short bursts:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on FFL! From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi Ãâ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: snip That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous obnoxiousness. (You can call that a less than pleasant event if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what you had in mind.) Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest about it.) Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask the folks you have in mind. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were more comfortable with. I have no idea what your point is here. I think people react to Barry as individuals, not because of how I react to him. Maybe you're the exception, though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: No, it's not too late, Judy; thank you; I much appreciate it. Yes, part of me did get a kick out it all, and it was blissful -- and then my physiology got a KICK out of it all on a whole new level! :-D You are quite right about my projecting an invulnerability; that is indeed a part of me, but (obviously) not the whole me. Some election results from outlying precincts come in a bit later, particularly where my body is concerned, and as I have found, they can be devastatingly uncompromising. I went to sleep that night with subtle pyrotechnics in the heart, and awoke at 5 with the full-on physical symptoms. But I will try to be more attuned faster to the outlying results and reflect a more immediately nuanced response in the future. I remember your supportive comments as well, of course. You are right, I have no impulse to go back and look, but if memory serves (which it may not), the Bullcrap seemed to be in response to my saying something like, what I say is not that important; what is important is the energetic connection, meaning the healing or assimilation that takes place in me (as a result of an interaction). Does that sound about right? Nope. Here it is (#352913): === --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: (snip) I am sorry if this sounds odd; it has been a sore spot with me for some time, some of these wavicles of Us who claim they want us and then fight us tooth and nail when we try to bring them home! Try to imagine how painful it is for these wavicles to be told we're resisting enlightenment. For some of us it can be quite a painful dance for a while. Ever think perhaps your attempts to draw them into that dance is doing more harm than good? But understandable, seeing as they may deep-down see Us as death... Bullcrap, Rory. === Because I did mean that in all sincerity. I do hold my primary reason for being here as a chance for me to undergo energetic healing and assimilation. But I will (if possible) do it more cautiously and with more sensitivity, I think. As to whatever state of consciousness I might or might not be in, I have no idea about any of that; it's not currently of particular importance or interest to me. Thanks again. *L*L*L* R. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: Judy, I appreciate your overture. No, I was not reading any posts for a few days there -- I was otherwise occupied, what with the ER and so on, and trying to take it easy -- and have not been following things religiously since, so I must have missed your post. I did not mean to imply here that you had always condemned me as a person, and in my post to you I believe I said I appreciate much of what you do here, and that includes your overall relationship with me, up until a few days ago. That's why I had opened my heart to you in the first place. I did appreciate your clarification that your responses only applied to specific things I had just said. Nonetheless, their sheer unexpected brutality hit me very hard. Um, yeah, except that you told me (1) your ego got a great kick out of my kicking its ass. You also (2) thanked me and said It's (eventually) always a pleasure to see ourselves as others see us :-), *and* (3) that I might be right about your egotism and that the thought [filled you] with bliss (three separate posts). None of those remarks seems consistent with sheer unexpected brutality hitting you very hard. Maybe if you'd showed me how you were *really* feeling at the time of that first exchange, I'd have been more gentle in following up. But you know, Rory, when you present yourself as invulnerable, it sort of acts as encouragement for people to say exactly what they think without having to worry about your feelings. Anyway, now we know that whatever state of consciousness you're in, it doesn't protect you from being terribly wounded by negative opinions of you. And I still don't understand what it was I said that caused you to twice call me the most egregious ego you had ever encountered You could have asked, Rory. Instead, you seemed to welcome my comments. In any case, I never called *you* the most egregious ego, I called remarks you made the most egregious *display of ego* I had ever encountered. That you occasionally display an ego doesn't mean that's all you are. -- almost a redundancy there, in a way, as every ego is egregious, standing out from the crowd -- followed in quick succession by Bullcrap and phony as a three-dollar bill. Actually Bullcrap was first, referring to--well, you can look the posts up if you're interested. I'm sure you won't, but you really should go back and look at all
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: No, it's not too late, Judy; thank you; I much appreciate it. Yes, part of me did get a kick out it all, and it was blissful -- and then my physiology got a KICK out of it all on a whole new level! :-D You are quite right about my projecting an invulnerability; that is indeed a part of me, but (obviously) not the whole me. Some election results from outlying precincts come in a bit later, particularly where my body is concerned, and as I have found, they can be devastatingly uncompromising. I went to sleep that night with subtle pyrotechnics in the heart, and awoke at 5 with the full-on physical symptoms. But I will try to be more attuned faster to the outlying results and reflect a more immediately nuanced response in the future. I remember your supportive comments as well, of course. You are right, I have no impulse to go back and look, but if memory serves (which it may not), the Bullcrap seemed to be in response to my saying something like, what I say is not that important; what is important is the energetic connection, meaning the healing or assimilation that takes place in me (as a result of an interaction). Does that sound about right? Nope. Here it is (#352913): === --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: (snip) I am sorry if this sounds odd; it has been a sore spot with me for some time, some of these wavicles of Us who claim they want us and then fight us tooth and nail when we try to bring them home! Try to imagine how painful it is for these wavicles to be told we're resisting enlightenment. For some of us it can be quite a painful dance for a while. Ever think perhaps your attempts to draw them into that dance is doing more harm than good? But understandable, seeing as they may deep-down see Us as death... Bullcrap, Rory. Ah, right, thank you, Judy! To which I responded something like I said *may* as that was my experience. Yours may be something entirely different. And again, to clarify, I reiterate that I was not thinking about you when I wrote this post, but myself and another FFL member, long ago, who did appear to do that push-pull routine. I don't really see you as claiming to want me (or enlightenment -- whatever that may be), nor as fighting me (or enlightenment or whatever) tooth and nail. From my point of view, you're fine; there's nothing to fix.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: Ah, right, thank you, Judy! To which I responded something like I said *may* as that was my experience. Yours may be something entirely different. And again, to clarify, I reiterate that I was not thinking about you when I wrote this post, but myself and another FFL member, long ago, who did appear to do that push-pull routine. I don't really see you as claiming to want me (or enlightenment -- whatever that may be), nor as fighting me (or enlightenment or whatever) tooth and nail. From my point of view, you're fine; there's nothing to fix. Also, to clarify some more, I do not actually equate me and enlightenment for you, or for anyone or anything outside of my own body or energy-field. I have no idea what I am. Whatever I may or may not really be, I can say with some degree of certainty that am not particularly enlightened, nor am I enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: You should probably read the essay: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf Knowing what it is like to be your identical twin brother is no more possible than knowing what it is like to be a bat. You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother, but you cannot know what it is like for a *bat* to be a bat, nor what it is like for your identical twin brother to be your identical twin brother. As far as Batman is concerned, there is nothing that it is like for Batman to be Batman, since he doesn't exist. I did read Nagel's essay some years ago, but just taking what you have written here, I have a few comments. There is something it is like to be Batman because this persona was created in the human mind of Robert Kane. The human mind can envision things, situations, people, which previously did not exist, and bring them to fruition. I am thinking how realistically good actors portray characters that in many cases are very unlike their own persona. People actually seem to come to believe that the actors are the characters, and not as they really are, people doing the job of pretending to be a person for the purpose of drama. We create machines that never have before existed, say the iPod. Is there something it is like to be an iPod? (Assumes that consciousness is not a localised property). What is the certain extent that it is possible to imagine what it is to be like someone? If it is true you cannot know what it is like to be even your twin, if you had one, what does this say for your supposed ability to know what a person's motives are, what they are experiencing when they make a post here on FFL? According to the account above, it would seem likely that you are very much overstepping what it is possible to actually know, and yet you present other's motivations in such a way that makes it seem you are certain this or that is what is happening internally with a person when that person posts. This comment of course applies to anyone else who here posts also. I am not questioning your motives here, but what evidence exists that supports your view of their motives for posting? I have been gradually reading through Feser's blog posts on Nagel. Really interesting. I would consider him a dualist of some kind. I am not a dualist because I have a world view that does not include metaphysics. It certainly includes mystery, as the details of existence are elusive. For me the mystery of consciousness is largely solved, but there is nothing I can say about it, but as it turns out I am actually in agreement with Maharishi on the majority of essential points even though I find the Hindu-centric nature of the movement's language less appealing than other ways of speaking about this. Of course others may consider what I think of what Maharishi taught as a gross distortion of what he actually meant. So the world turns. In general, any philosophy that separates characteristics of existence into logically incompatible categories serves to provide endless argument. Examples are physical and non-physical, matter and spirit, etc. Whenever this is done, it seems impossible to create an interface between the two opposed characteristics that would connect them. It is kind of like positive and negative integers. Mathematically possible. But what is the appearance or taste of one orange compared to a minus one orange? So there are three choices (at least). There is philosophy which has been said to be questions without anwsers. There is religion, which has been said to be answers that cannot be questioned. And there is enlightenment. What is it like to be enlightened? Is it possible for anyone to know what it is like to be enlightened? If, for example, there are enlightened people posting on FFL, presumably they would know what it is like. For the others, they would not know at all, though they might believe they know what it would be like. And then there might be some who think they are enlightened, but have made a mistake. And then maybe this whole enlightement thing is just a ruse.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Xeno wrote: There is philosophy which has been said to be questions without anwsers. There is religion, which has been said to be answers that cannot be questioned. And there is enlightenment. Share writes: And there is enlightenment which is thought to be the ultimate in questions and answers? Plus, what about science? There is science which only loves operationally defined questions and answers? From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:36 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: You should probably read the essay: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf Knowing what it is like to be your identical twin brother is no more possible than knowing what it is like to be a bat. You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother, but you cannot know what it is like for a *bat* to be a bat, nor what it is like for your identical twin brother to be your identical twin brother. As far as Batman is concerned, there is nothing that it is like for Batman to be Batman, since he doesn't exist. I did read Nagel's essay some years ago, but just taking what you have written here, I have a few comments. There is something it is like to be Batman because this persona was created in the human mind of Robert Kane. The human mind can envision things, situations, people, which previously did not exist, and bring them to fruition. I am thinking how realistically good actors portray characters that in many cases are very unlike their own persona. People actually seem to come to believe that the actors are the characters, and not as they really are, people doing the job of pretending to be a person for the purpose of drama. We create machines that never have before existed, say the iPod. Is there something it is like to be an iPod? (Assumes that consciousness is not a localised property). What is the certain extent that it is possible to imagine what it is to be like someone? If it is true you cannot know what it is like to be even your twin, if you had one, what does this say for your supposed ability to know what a person's motives are, what they are experiencing when they make a post here on FFL? According to the account above, it would seem likely that you are very much overstepping what it is possible to actually know, and yet you present other's motivations in such a way that makes it seem you are certain this or that is what is happening internally with a person when that person posts. This comment of course applies to anyone else who here posts also. I am not questioning your motives here, but what evidence exists that supports your view of their motives for posting? I have been gradually reading through Feser's blog posts on Nagel. Really interesting. I would consider him a dualist of some kind. I am not a dualist because I have a world view that does not include metaphysics. It certainly includes mystery, as the details of existence are elusive. For me the mystery of consciousness is largely solved, but there is nothing I can say about it, but as it turns out I am actually in agreement with Maharishi on the majority of essential points even though I find the Hindu-centric nature of the movement's language less appealing than other ways of speaking about this. Of course others may consider what I think of what Maharishi taught as a gross distortion of what he actually meant. So the world turns. In general, any philosophy that separates characteristics of existence into logically incompatible categories serves to provide endless argument. Examples are physical and non-physical, matter and spirit, etc. Whenever this is done, it seems impossible to create an interface between the two opposed characteristics that would connect them. It is kind of like positive and negative integers. Mathematically possible. But what is the appearance or taste of one orange compared to a minus one orange? So there are three choices (at least). There is philosophy which has been said to be questions without anwsers. There is religion, which has been said to be answers that cannot be questioned. And there is enlightenment. What is it like to be enlightened? Is it possible for anyone to know what it is like to be enlightened? If, for example, there are enlightened people posting on FFL, presumably they would know what it is like. For the others, they would not know at all, though they might believe they know what it would be like. And then there might be some who think they are enlightened, but have made a mistake. And then maybe this whole enlightement thing is just a ruse.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You should probably read the essay: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf Knowing what it is like to be your identical twin brother is no more possible than knowing what it is like to be a bat. You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother, but you cannot know what it is like for a *bat* to be a bat, nor what it is like for your identical twin brother to be your identical twin brother. As far as Batman is concerned, there is nothing that it is like for Batman to be Batman, since he doesn't exist. I did read Nagel's essay some years ago, but just taking what you have written here, I have a few comments. There is something it is like to be Batman because this persona was created in the human mind of Robert Kane. There is something that it is like to be Robert Kane creating Batman. There is nothing that it is like to be Batman, as I said, because Batman does not exist. The human mind can envision things, situations, people, which previously did not exist, and bring them to fruition. I am thinking how realistically good actors portray (snip) This has nothing to do with what Nagel is talking about. What is the certain extent that it is possible to imagine what it is to be like someone? It varies. If it is true you cannot know what it is like to be even your twin, if you had one, what does this say for your supposed ability to know what a person's motives are, what they are experiencing when they make a post here on FFL? As I believe I said above, You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother... Now, I know you read that, because you asked me what a certain extent was. So why are you asking that question as though I hadn't already covered it? According to the account above, it would seem likely that you are very much overstepping what it is possible to *plonk*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Share writes: And there is enlightenment which is thought to be the ultimate in questions and answers? Plus, what about science? There is science which only loves operationally defined questions and answers? I would say enlightenment is not about a question that must be answered. It is an answer that has no corresponding question. As for science, I left that out, as science does not seem concerned with metaphysics in spite of philosophers attempting to introduce it. Science attempts to make sense out of the patterns we find in nature, but its attempt to provide a unified explanation of everything probably will fall short, and end up something like Stephen Hawking envisions, a series of overlapping theories each of which more or less works in its own domain, but not in others. [The Difference, courtesy xkcd.com]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: As I believe I said above, You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother... Now, I know you read that, because you asked me what a certain extent was. So why are you asking that question as though I hadn't already covered it? I was inquiring as to the range of that extent, perhaps not clearly. In other words, how far from 100% accuracy would you say your descriptions of people's motives range? 10%, 30%?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
And there is enlightenment which is thought to be the ultimate in questions and answers? Enlightenment *is* a verb, mostly, one discovery after another. Though, on approach, like seeing Disneyland in the distance, it looks like a massive, solid, consumable, object. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Xeno wrote: There is philosophy which has been said to be questions without anwsers. There is religion, which has been said to be answers that cannot be questioned. And there is enlightenment. Share writes: And there is enlightenment which is thought to be the ultimate in questions and answers? Plus, what about science? There is science which only loves operationally defined questions and answers? From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:36 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You should probably read the essay: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf Knowing what it is like to be your identical twin brother is no more possible than knowing what it is like to be a bat. You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother, but you cannot know what it is like for a *bat* to be a bat, nor what it is like for your identical twin brother to be your identical twin brother. As far as Batman is concerned, there is nothing that it is like for Batman to be Batman, since he doesn't exist. I did read Nagel's essay some years ago, but just taking what you have written here, I have a few comments. There is something it is like to be Batman because this persona was created in the human mind of Robert Kane. The human mind can envision things, situations, people, which previously did not exist, and bring them to fruition. I am thinking how realistically good actors portray characters that in many cases are very unlike their own persona. People actually seem to come to believe that the actors are the characters, and not as they really are, people doing the job of pretending to be a person for the purpose of drama. We create machines that never have before existed, say the iPod. Is there something it is like to be an iPod? (Assumes that consciousness is not a localised property). What is the certain extent that it is possible to imagine what it is to be like someone? If it is true you cannot know what it is like to be even your twin, if you had one, what does this say for your supposed ability to know what a person's motives are, what they are experiencing when they make a post here on FFL? According to the account above, it would seem likely that you are very much overstepping what it is possible to actually know, and yet you present other's motivations in such a way that makes it seem you are certain this or that is what is happening internally with a person when that person posts. This comment of course applies to anyone else who here posts also. I am not questioning your motives here, but what evidence exists that supports your view of their motives for posting? I have been gradually reading through Feser's blog posts on Nagel. Really interesting. I would consider him a dualist of some kind. I am not a dualist because I have a world view that does not include metaphysics. It certainly includes mystery, as the details of existence are elusive. For me the mystery of consciousness is largely solved, but there is nothing I can say about it, but as it turns out I am actually in agreement with Maharishi on the majority of essential points even though I find the Hindu-centric nature of the movement's language less appealing than other ways of speaking about this. Of course others may consider what I think of what Maharishi taught as a gross distortion of what he actually meant. So the world turns. In general, any philosophy that separates characteristics of existence into logically incompatible categories serves to provide endless argument. Examples are physical and non-physical, matter and spirit, etc. Whenever this is done, it seems impossible to create an interface between the two opposed characteristics that would connect them. It is kind of like positive and negative integers. Mathematically possible. But what is the appearance or taste of one orange compared to a minus one orange? So there are three choices (at least). There is philosophy which has been said to be questions without anwsers. There is religion, which has been said to be answers that cannot be questioned. And there is enlightenment. What is it like to be enlightened? Is it possible for anyone to know what it is like to be enlightened? If, for example, there are enlightened
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: As I believe I said above, You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother... Now, I know you read that, because you asked me what a certain extent was. So why are you asking that question as though I hadn't already covered it? I was inquiring as to the range of that extent, perhaps not clearly. In other words, how far from 100% accuracy would you say your descriptions of people's motives range? 10%, 30%? That also varies. But you aren't really describing your question accurately, are you? It was actually confrontational and accusatory, wasn't it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You should probably read the essay: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf Knowing what it is like to be your identical twin brother is no more possible than knowing what it is like to be a bat. You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother, but you cannot know what it is like for a *bat* to be a bat, nor what it is like for your identical twin brother to be your identical twin brother. As far as Batman is concerned, there is nothing that it is like for Batman to be Batman, since he doesn't exist. I did read Nagel's essay some years ago, but just taking what you have written here, I have a few comments. There is something it is like to be Batman because this persona was created in the human mind of Robert Kane. There is something that it is like to be Robert Kane creating Batman. There is nothing that it is like to be Batman, as I said, because Batman does not exist. In the academic vernacular: Nagel's point is an ontological, point, not an epistemological one. I think we can agree that the world we live in is full of many things. The inventory of this world is our ontology. Mine includes the planet Mars, Mozart's Requiem, my big toe, my wife, the number 4,039, and so on. YMMV. On my desk there is an empty coffee mug, a computer that is nicknamed Parmenides on my LAN, and our cat Dexter. The statement there is an x such that there is something that is what is like to be that coffee mug I take to be false. The statement there is an x such that there is something that is what is like to be the computer called Parmenides I take to be false. The statement there is an x such that there is something that is what is like to be Dexter I take to be true. So what? Well this clarifies the problem of consciousness (or being). It points us towards the hard problem. That is to say, on the basis of most folks' ontology there exists in the world things that can take a perspective (which is surely better than things that can have a first person ontology? It seems odd to say that one's ontology includes first person ontologies?). From a materialist, or a physicalist, or a naturalistic point of view it is hard to explain how things with perspectives could come to be. Try to persuade me however much you like, I cannot see how a computer for example could ever have a perspective in the way alluded to here. It might pass the Turing test; it might walk, talk, and otherwise act indistinguishably from a human. But I see no reason to believe that it would be true *for that reason alone* that there would be an x such that there would be something that is what is like to be that thing. The human mind can envision things, situations, people, which previously did not exist, and bring them to fruition. I am thinking how realistically good actors portray (snip) This has nothing to do with what Nagel is talking about. Indeed. Nothing. What is the certain extent that it is possible to imagine what it is to be like someone? It varies. If it is true you cannot know what it is like to be even your twin, if you had one, what does this say for your supposed ability to know what a person's motives are, what they are experiencing when they make a post here on FFL? As I believe I said above, You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother... Now, I know you read that, because you asked me what a certain extent was. So why are you asking that question as though I hadn't already covered it? According to the account above, it would seem likely that you are very much overstepping what it is possible to *plonk*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
I bet she'd be too old for you (-: From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 11:11 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: salyavin, concerning women and science fiction, I'd say look to the female brain chemistry and structure. Do you know that the corpus callosum is bigger in woman than in men? I'd postulate that that makes women more whole brain, not so dominated by the left brain, therefore more intuitive which to me means that we combine left and right brain functions more easily, are not so imprisoned by left brain abstracting. It's bound to be something like that, something which is variable in both sexes. As regards the theme you mention below, maybe it's not such a big deal for women because they create the most uncontrollable thing on earth: other people! Are you familiar with male named SF writers who are actually women: Andrew Norton, James Tiptree Jr. and Pat Murphy? That's a good idea, wonder if I'd be able to tell by reading them? PS I like some SF and have a good friend who REALLY likes it. Wow, introduce me! From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 6:13 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  snip Frankenstein is a great book by any standard but it's the basis of most SF because it's about man's scientific creations running out of control. This fear that we are unleashing something we can't control when we manipulate nature or give our power to our creations must be the biggest theme in the genre. I might go through that list and tick off the ones that fit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
IS any of it a discovery? It seems more like its an acknowledgement of a situation: Oh, I'm like that, aren't I? Huh. Not as big a deal as I expected. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: And there is enlightenment which is thought to be the ultimate in questions and answers? Enlightenment *is* a verb, mostly, one discovery after another. Though, on approach, like seeing Disneyland in the distance, it looks like a massive, solid, consumable, object. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Xeno wrote: There is philosophy which has been said to be questions without anwsers. There is religion, which has been said to be answers that cannot be questioned. And there is enlightenment. Share writes: And there is enlightenment which is thought to be the ultimate in questions and answers? Plus, what about science? There is science which only loves operationally defined questions and answers? From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:36 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You should probably read the essay: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf Knowing what it is like to be your identical twin brother is no more possible than knowing what it is like to be a bat. You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother, but you cannot know what it is like for a *bat* to be a bat, nor what it is like for your identical twin brother to be your identical twin brother. As far as Batman is concerned, there is nothing that it is like for Batman to be Batman, since he doesn't exist. I did read Nagel's essay some years ago, but just taking what you have written here, I have a few comments. There is something it is like to be Batman because this persona was created in the human mind of Robert Kane. The human mind can envision things, situations, people, which previously did not exist, and bring them to fruition. I am thinking how realistically good actors portray characters that in many cases are very unlike their own persona. People actually seem to come to believe that the actors are the characters, and not as they really are, people doing the job of pretending to be a person for the purpose of drama. We create machines that never have before existed, say the iPod. Is there something it is like to be an iPod? (Assumes that consciousness is not a localised property). What is the certain extent that it is possible to imagine what it is to be like someone? If it is true you cannot know what it is like to be even your twin, if you had one, what does this say for your supposed ability to know what a person's motives are, what they are experiencing when they make a post here on FFL? According to the account above, it would seem likely that you are very much overstepping what it is possible to actually know, and yet you present other's motivations in such a way that makes it seem you are certain this or that is what is happening internally with a person when that person posts. This comment of course applies to anyone else who here posts also. I am not questioning your motives here, but what evidence exists that supports your view of their motives for posting? I have been gradually reading through Feser's blog posts on Nagel. Really interesting. I would consider him a dualist of some kind. I am not a dualist because I have a world view that does not include metaphysics. It certainly includes mystery, as the details of existence are elusive. For me the mystery of consciousness is largely solved, but there is nothing I can say about it, but as it turns out I am actually in agreement with Maharishi on the majority of essential points even though I find the Hindu-centric nature of the movement's language less appealing than other ways of speaking about this. Of course others may consider what I think of what Maharishi taught as a gross distortion of what he actually meant. So the world turns. In general, any philosophy that separates characteristics of existence into logically incompatible categories serves to provide endless argument. Examples are physical and non-physical, matter and spirit, etc. Whenever this is done, it seems impossible to create an interface between the two opposed characteristics that would connect them. It is kind of like positive and negative integers. Mathematically possible. But what is the appearance or taste of one orange compared to a minus one orange? So there are three choices (at least
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: As I believe I said above, You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother... Now, I know you read that, because you asked me what a certain extent was. So why are you asking that question as though I hadn't already covered it? I was inquiring as to the range of that extent, perhaps not clearly. In other words, how far from 100% accuracy would you say your descriptions of people's motives range? 10%, 30%? That also varies. But you aren't really describing your question accurately, are you? It was actually confrontational and accusatory, wasn't it? To make the question more precise, for any given person on FFL, in your own estimation, based on the replies you get and the posts directed to you either directly or indirectly, is there a range somewhere within 0% to 100% for which you feel you can accurately estimate or guesstimate the motives a person has in making such a post? I would assume that the percentage would vary with the person. Now your last comment above is not relevant to my question in the previous post, but since you brought it up, this last comment of yours seems to me a diversion, and to me sounds confrontational and accusatory. Now I said sounds, since I might be mistaken, but to me it is in line with your posting 'style'. Why do you feel you are being accused? Further, in *my opinion* I do sometimes think you go over the top in describing other people's motives, and my subjective interpretation is you are projecting your internal state, your opinion of the situation, onto that person. Now that is *my* projection. Now take Barry. He grossly exaggerates often in his posts, is often rather unkind, exceptionally unkind occasionally. But overall, my subjective interpretation of what he writes is he is not usually intense about it, but when you do it, it feels very intense. That is, what he says in like vein is not important to him nearly to the degree what you say is important to you. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were more comfortable with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: As I believe I said above, You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother... Now, I know you read that, because you asked me what a certain extent was. So why are you asking that question as though I hadn't already covered it? I was inquiring as to the range of that extent, perhaps not clearly. In other words, how far from 100% accuracy would you say your descriptions of people's motives range? 10%, 30%? That also varies. But you aren't really describing your question accurately, are you? It was actually confrontational and accusatory, wasn't it? To make the question more precise, for any given person on FFL, in your own estimation, based on the replies you get and the posts directed to you either directly or indirectly, is there a range somewhere within 0% to 100% for which you feel you can accurately estimate or guesstimate the motives a person has in making such a post? I would assume that the percentage would vary with the person. If I may put in my two cents here: This is an interesting question but I think everyone in answering someone's post evaluates where that person is 'coming from' when posting something. How sincere are they? How much are they trying to push buttons? To what degree does a poster really not know the answer to something and is merely looking for attention? Is the poster open to whatever feedback they are presumably asking you for? All of these things and many, many more are analyzed, consciously or unconsciously, when deciding whether to reply to someone or not. Having assessed all these things a response will be forthcoming. I think that I can accurately assess where a person is 'coming from' about 90% of the time. Part of this is past history watching various people interact and knowing who they like, who they don't like and how they tend to communicate - their style, their tools, their verbal weaponry, their personality as it appears here at FFL. Buck is one of the few who is the most mysterious of anybody to me. Those who know him personally will know what he is all about but based on his FFL presence I really couldn't tell you with any real accuracy who he is. Now your last comment above is not relevant to my question in the previous post, but since you brought it up, this last comment of yours seems to me a diversion, and to me sounds confrontational and accusatory. Now I said sounds, since I might be mistaken, but to me it is in line with your posting 'style'. Why do you feel you are being accused? Further, in *my opinion* I do sometimes think you go over the top in describing other people's motives, and my subjective interpretation is you are projecting your internal state, your opinion of the situation, onto that person. Now that is *my* projection. Now take Barry. He grossly exaggerates often in his posts, is often rather unkind, exceptionally unkind occasionally. But overall, my subjective interpretation of what he writes is he is not usually intense about it, but when you do it, it feels very intense. That is, what he says in like vein is not important to him nearly to the degree what you say is important to you. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside from the question I asked about percentages, I do think you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, do you think yourself that you are this way or not? Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. I would assume that those who thought you were would tend to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an outlook on life they were more comfortable with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: To make the question more precise, for any given person on FFL, in your own estimation, based on the replies you get and the posts directed to you either directly or indirectly, is there a range somewhere within 0% to 100% for which you feel you can accurately estimate or guesstimate the motives a person has in making such a post? I would assume that the percentage would vary with the person. If I may put in my two cents here: This is an interesting question but I think everyone in answering someone's post evaluates where that person is 'coming from' when posting something. How sincere are they? How much are they trying to push buttons? To what degree does a poster really not know the answer to something and is merely looking for attention? Is the poster open to whatever feedback they are presumably asking you for? All of these things and many, many more are analyzed, consciously or unconsciously, when deciding whether to reply to someone or not. Having assessed all these things a response will be forthcoming. I think that I can accurately assess where a person is 'coming from' about 90% of the time. Part of this is past history watching various people interact and knowing who they like, who they don't like and how they tend to communicate - their style, their tools, their verbal weaponry, their personality as it appears here at FFL. Buck is one of the few who is the most mysterious of anybody to me. Those who know him personally will know what he is all about but based on his FFL presence I really couldn't tell you with any real accuracy who he is. That is a pretty good percentage. I could never claim to scope out someone that well, I have to hedge my bets when I try to do that. I was never good at it. About Buck. Yes, he is rather unusual. I tend to think of him as something out the mid-19th century, way before even my time. Share said something about meeting Buck; I got the impression he had the same effect in person. As I asked in portions of this post snipped away here these questions of Judy, I do not know whether I will get a reasoned reply or I should put on body armour, or take a vacation to Madagascar. Generally I get the impression she is irritated with me most of the time. But I really am not good at this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: To make the question more precise, for any given person on FFL, in your own estimation, based on the replies you get and the posts directed to you either directly or indirectly, is there a range somewhere within 0% to 100% for which you feel you can accurately estimate or guesstimate the motives a person has in making such a post? I would assume that the percentage would vary with the person. If I may put in my two cents here: This is an interesting question but I think everyone in answering someone's post evaluates where that person is 'coming from' when posting something. How sincere are they? How much are they trying to push buttons? To what degree does a poster really not know the answer to something and is merely looking for attention? Is the poster open to whatever feedback they are presumably asking you for? All of these things and many, many more are analyzed, consciously or unconsciously, when deciding whether to reply to someone or not. Having assessed all these things a response will be forthcoming. I think that I can accurately assess where a person is 'coming from' about 90% of the time. Part of this is past history watching various people interact and knowing who they like, who they don't like and how they tend to communicate - their style, their tools, their verbal weaponry, their personality as it appears here at FFL. Buck is one of the few who is the most mysterious of anybody to me. Those who know him personally will know what he is all about but based on his FFL presence I really couldn't tell you with any real accuracy who he is. That is a pretty good percentage. I could never claim to scope out someone that well, I have to hedge my bets when I try to do that. I was never good at it. About Buck. Yes, he is rather unusual. I tend to think of him as something out the mid-19th century, way before even my time. Share said something about meeting Buck; I got the impression he had the same effect in person. As I asked in portions of this post snipped away here these questions of Judy, I do not know whether I will get a reasoned reply or I should put on body armour, or take a vacation to Madagascar. Generally I get the impression she is irritated with me most of the time. But I really am not good at this. Aww, Xeno. Don't worry. Judy isn't THAT scary. She is sharp as a tack, quick as a whip and definitely doesn't seem to suffer fools very well but I sense her heart is actually deep and true and very red. I think her bark is worse than her bite and she can drop her annoyance quickly and easily. I love that she can be downright ruthless one moment and be very happy to engage positively and enthusiastically with the same person the next moment. Just don't lie to her, try and manipulate a situation or act in a way that indicates laziness or sloppiness with regard to posting history and assertions thereof. She'll get you every time. Here is the thing, I would rather get a whupping by Ms Stein than a spit ball in the face by a few others around here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: As I believe I said above, You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother... Now, I know you read that, because you asked me what a certain extent was. So why are you asking that question as though I hadn't already covered it? I was inquiring as to the range of that extent, perhaps not clearly. In other words, how far from 100% accuracy would you say your descriptions of people's motives range? 10%, 30%? That also varies. But you aren't really describing your question accurately, are you? It was actually confrontational and accusatory, wasn't it? To make the question more precise, for any given person on FFL, in your own estimation, based on the replies you get and the posts directed to you either directly or indirectly, is there a range somewhere within 0% to 100% for which you feel you can accurately estimate or guesstimate the motives a person has in making such a post? I would assume that the percentage would vary with the person. Right. That's why I said It varies. Now your last comment above is not relevant to my question in the previous post, but since you brought it up, this last comment of yours seems to me a diversion, Diversion from what? I responded to your (revised) question. and to me sounds confrontational and accusatory. Now I said sounds, since I might be mistaken, but to me it is in line with your posting 'style'. Why do you feel you are being accused? Because this is what you said: If it is true you cannot know what it is like to be even your twin, if you had one, what does this say for your supposed ability to know what a person's motives are, what they are experiencing when they make a post here on FFL? According to the account above, it would seem likely that you are very much overstepping what it is possible to actually know, and yet you present other's motivations in such a way that makes it seem you are certain this or that is what is happening internally with a person when that person posts. This comment of course applies to anyone else who here posts also. I am not questioning your motives here, but what evidence exists that supports your view of their motives for posting? Further, in *my opinion* I do sometimes think you go over the top in describing other people's motives, Right, you made that very clear in your original question that I just quoted. That's why I said it was confrontational and accusatory. and my subjective interpretation is you are projecting your internal state, your opinion of the situation, onto that person. Yes, I think you could accurately say I was projecting my opinion of the situation onto the person. What else would I be doing?? Now that is *my* projection. Now take Barry. He grossly exaggerates often in his posts, is often rather unkind, exceptionally unkind occasionally. And lies. You forgot lies. But overall, my subjective interpretation of what he writes is he is not usually intense about it, but when you do it, it feels very intense. So, that's your experience. My experience is that when I reread my posts of that type, I'm often surprised that they're as low-key as they are, especially compared to Barry's. I seem to have a built-in tendency to take things down a notch that I'm not really conscious of while I'm writing. That is, what he says in like vein is not important to him nearly to the degree what you say is important to you. That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't something to be done casually or for fun. Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I have read recently that comes close to your intensity. You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. Did you see this one, for instance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long afterward, he decided he was going to go back to not responding to his enemies. Oh, BTW, below Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, which I'm not sure you saw either.) Here's another (also with my response at the top): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your method of responding to people developed in response to some less than pleasant events, or it could a family characteristic. Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --snip-- While I do not have time to enter the fray here at the moment, I did notice this thread about 'Mind and Cosmos' which I have *not* read but which seemingly brings up once again the 'hard problem of consciousness'. I do not think hard problem will go away philosophically or experimentally. When the brain is deactivated, all observable appearances of conscious behaviour vanish. But as meditators of one sort or another, the experiences we have are something else. In particular for me, the gap I experienced during surgery was most interesting. Did I in fact experience it? Was it an experience? Was it pure being? Like TC, but lasts for hours but has no sense of time. Then there is the experience that everything has an equal value of consciousness, which in some way, seems redundant to say there is some value called consciousness that is somehow distinct from any kind of experience. To me consciousness = being, and this contradicts the idea that consciousness can be snuffed out by destroying the brain. But then when the brain is largely deactivated by anaesthesia there is nothing, or is there? Because that gap has a value, at least in retrospect in memory of its having been there. It is a paradox. At least intellectually it is a paradox, and perhaps leaving it as a mystery on the level of the mind can leave one settled. Ever wonder what a neo-Darwinist atheist would experience in GC? (Assuming GC is a real state of experience) I came across some web pages discussing Nagel's book: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/ferguson-on-nagel.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-i.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-ii.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iii.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iv.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-v.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-vi.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/pummeled_with_p068931.html http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/35163-mind-and-cosmos-why-the-materialist-neo-darwinian-conception-of-nature-is-almost-certainly-false/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --snip-- While I do not have time to enter the fray here at the moment, I did notice this thread about 'Mind and Cosmos' which I have *not* read but which seemingly brings up once again the 'hard problem of consciousness'. Well, sorta. The focus isn't so much on what consciousness is in an experiential sense, but rather on how it got there. (Nagel covered the experiential I do not think hard problem will go away philosophically or experimentally. Not if science continues to be stuck in a reductionist mode of understanding it. Once scientists start listening to the philosophers, however, there may be some progress. I suspect some here (not necessarily you, Xeno, given that you're named for a philosopher) don't have a very good idea of what philosophy is or how it can contribute to science and to everyday life generally. I think they may have an image of elderly men sitting around daydreaming and occasionally uttering abstract thoughts that have no relevance except to their daydreams. Actually, philosophy is a *discipline*, a very stringent one, that involves, among other things, learning how to think constructively. Epistemology is an important concern of philosophy; so are logic, aesthetics, ethics, and metaphysics (a lot of the stuff we talk about here all the time, not always that constructively). Wikipedia's short definition: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy Philosophy is very important in the study of consciousness because consciousness can be studied empirically only around the edges, as it were. You can't study (what Robin would call) first-person ontology *in situ*--at least not anybody *else's* first-person ontology. (snip) I came across some web pages discussing Nagel's book: I actually gave Seraphita the URL for an annotated list by Feser of this whole series of posts: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/06/mind-and-cosmos-roundup.html (Actually there's a total of ten posts, so four are missing from your list.) Feser is generally supportive of Nagel's thesis, although he has a few minor nits to pick. A similarly minded philosopher, Bill Vallicella, also has a series of posts on Mind and Cosmos: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/nagel-thomas/ http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/ferguson-on-nagel.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-i.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-ii.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iii.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iv.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-v.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-vi.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/pummeled_with_p068931.html This one (just above) is by an intelligent design advocate, on a blog sponsored by the Discovery Institute. No surprise that this writer would approve of Nagel. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/35163-mind-and-cosmos-why-the-materialist-neo-darwinian-conception-of-nature-is-almost-certainly-false/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: (snip) Well, sorta. The focus isn't so much on what consciousness is in an experiential sense, but rather on how it got there. (Nagel covered the experiential Ooops, never finished the sentence. I meant to refer to his seminal essay What Is It Like to Be a Bat? He's written other books and articles on the experiential angle as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: I don't like the insto-get-out clause that magic gives you. Sorry. It's a pet peeve. It's a pet peeve of mine also. The only fantasy that appeals is the dark stuff - like Lovecraft's nightmares. There are no get-out-of-jail-free clauses in Lovecraft's world; everyone comes to a sticky end. Reality has hard edges; sometimes very hard and very sharp. That's what keeps our senses keen. My fave TV series has been The Borgias with Jeremy Irons and co. Sean Harris is scarily convincing as the assassin Micheletto. You get all the colourful costumes and characters of a fantasy but the story is rooted in historical reality so you get that extra frisson of excitement. I see on the website for the series you can buy an authentic replica of Micheletto's dagger. You could actually do some mischief with that in the real world; Harry Potter's wand would be a useless piece of crap.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --snip-- While I do not have time to enter the fray here at the moment, I did notice this thread about 'Mind and Cosmos' which I have *not* read but which seemingly brings up once again the 'hard problem of consciousness'. Well, sorta. The focus isn't so much on what consciousness is in an experiential sense, but rather on how it got there. (Nagel covered the experiential I do not think hard problem will go away philosophically or experimentally. Not if science continues to be stuck in a reductionist mode of understanding it. Once scientists start listening to the philosophers, however, there may be some progress. I suspect some here (not necessarily you, Xeno, given that you're named for a philosopher) don't have a very good idea of what philosophy is or how it can contribute to science and to everyday life generally. I think they may have an image of elderly men sitting around daydreaming and occasionally uttering abstract thoughts that have no relevance except to their daydreams. Actually, philosophy is a *discipline*, a very stringent one, that involves, among other things, learning how to think constructively. Epistemology is an important concern of philosophy; so are logic, aesthetics, ethics, and metaphysics (a lot of the stuff we talk about here all the time, not always that constructively). Wikipedia's short definition: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy Philosophy is very important in the study of consciousness because consciousness can be studied empirically only around the edges, as it were. You can't study (what Robin would call) first-person ontology *in situ*--at least not anybody *else's* first-person ontology. (snip) I came across some web pages discussing Nagel's book: I actually gave Seraphita the URL for an annotated list by Feser of this whole series of posts: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/06/mind-and-cosmos-roundup.html (Actually there's a total of ten posts, so four are missing from your list.) Feser is generally supportive of Nagel's thesis, although he has a few minor nits to pick. A similarly minded philosopher, Bill Vallicella, also has a series of posts on Mind and Cosmos: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/nagel-thomas/ http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/ferguson-on-nagel.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-i.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-ii.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iii.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iv.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-v.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-vi.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/pummeled_with_p068931.html This one (just above) is by an intelligent design advocate, on a blog sponsored by the Discovery Institute. No surprise that this writer would approve of Nagel. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/35163-mind-and-cosmos-why-the-materialist-neo-darwinian-conception-of-nature-is-almost-certainly-false/ Thanks for mentioning Feser made 10 posts and the link. I only found 6 on a cursory search as I only had a few spare minutes this morning and had to dash off doing whatever it is I do (taking a morning nap on a park bench?).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: (snip) Well, sorta. The focus isn't so much on what consciousness is in an experiential sense, but rather on how it got there. (Nagel covered the experiential Ooops, never finished the sentence. I meant to refer to his seminal essay What Is It Like to Be a Bat? He's written other books and articles on the experiential angle as well. I was thinking this morning (napping on the park bench?) that probably you would agree that there are such things as bats. This of course is the creature to which Nagel's paper refers. Bats exist. But what would it be like to be Batman? Batman is a fictional character. It does not appear to exist in the same way the animal we call a bat exists. Yet, even if it fails, we can kind of imagine what it might be like to be a bat (being small, not seeing very well, but really good with echo locations and flying, etc.), and because we are human, we might even be able to even more plausibly imagine what it might be like to be Batman, even though Batman is not real. One could dress up with a cowl (which probably restricts vision to some extent) and a cape and leap off a building, or perhaps, a park bench. If you ever visited a mansion, perhaps one could realise to some extent what it would be like to be the alter ego of Batman, Bruce Wayne. I would not know, philosophically, how to discern verbally the difference here between the attempt to emulate a bat and a fictional character. But what does it say about reality if it is more likely one can know, can experience, what it would be like to be something that does not exist than to be like something that does? Suppose I went to Grand Central Terminal in New York City, and watch shoeshine guys polishing the shoes of businessmen (there are a few stands like that there). Now I have never done this kind of work. But suppose I decided to learn that trade, and learned, as an apprentice, how to ply that trade and become a shoeshine boy (although in my case it would be a shoeshine senior)? Now I would know what it is like. But that is just activities. Is there a difference in what it is to be like a certain person which one is not, and what it is like to engage in a particular activity that has specific characteristics which one has never done? Both shoeshine guys and I are human (though some doubt the latter). A Batman, though fictional, is based on humanness. A bat is not human. A bat is a mammal. But I am a mammal too. So do I know something about what it is like to be a bat because I am a mammal? Or does the fact the attribution 'mammal' being applied to the bat and me is simply definitional obscure some essential reality that makes my understanding of 'batness' impossible?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
You should probably read the essay: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf Knowing what it is like to be your identical twin brother is no more possible than knowing what it is like to be a bat. You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother, but you cannot know what it is like for a *bat* to be a bat, nor what it is like for your identical twin brother to be your identical twin brother. As far as Batman is concerned, there is nothing that it is like for Batman to be Batman, since he doesn't exist. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: (snip) Well, sorta. The focus isn't so much on what consciousness is in an experiential sense, but rather on how it got there. (Nagel covered the experiential Ooops, never finished the sentence. I meant to refer to his seminal essay What Is It Like to Be a Bat? He's written other books and articles on the experiential angle as well. I was thinking this morning (napping on the park bench?) that probably you would agree that there are such things as bats. This of course is the creature to which Nagel's paper refers. Bats exist. But what would it be like to be Batman? Batman is a fictional character. It does not appear to exist in the same way the animal we call a bat exists. Yet, even if it fails, we can kind of imagine what it might be like to be a bat (being small, not seeing very well, but really good with echo locations and flying, etc.), and because we are human, we might even be able to even more plausibly imagine what it might be like to be Batman, even though Batman is not real. One could dress up with a cowl (which probably restricts vision to some extent) and a cape and leap off a building, or perhaps, a park bench. If you ever visited a mansion, perhaps one could realise to some extent what it would be like to be the alter ego of Batman, Bruce Wayne. I would not know, philosophically, how to discern verbally the difference here between the attempt to emulate a bat and a fictional character. But what does it say about reality if it is more likely one can know, can experience, what it would be like to be something that does not exist than to be like something that does? Suppose I went to Grand Central Terminal in New York City, and watch shoeshine guys polishing the shoes of businessmen (there are a few stands like that there). Now I have never done this kind of work. But suppose I decided to learn that trade, and learned, as an apprentice, how to ply that trade and become a shoeshine boy (although in my case it would be a shoeshine senior)? Now I would know what it is like. But that is just activities. Is there a difference in what it is to be like a certain person which one is not, and what it is like to engage in a particular activity that has specific characteristics which one has never done? Both shoeshine guys and I are human (though some doubt the latter). A Batman, though fictional, is based on humanness. A bat is not human. A bat is a mammal. But I am a mammal too. So do I know something about what it is like to be a bat because I am a mammal? Or does the fact the attribution 'mammal' being applied to the bat and me is simply definitional obscure some essential reality that makes my understanding of 'batness' impossible?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: Ahhh, there we must disagree again, I did read all the Lord of the Rings books, beginning when I was 12 years old, and over the years I must have read them and the Hobbit 25 or 30 times. I despised the movies for many reasons. I thought the Hobbit was a great book actually, but couldn't get into LotR. But I refused to go see the Hobbit movie because they stretched it out into 3 - 3 hour movies when it wasn't a very long book to start with. Blatant profiteering. I thought the 3rd LotR movie was pitiful which was a shame after the brilliance of the second one. I couldn't believe they went through all that just to get rescued by giant eagles that no one mentioned earlier, cheap escape. And it turned out that the dullest one of the good guys was the king all along. And that battle scene seemed to go on for most of my life! And the ending was appallingly done. And we didn't even see the baddie, apparently they saved that for the DVD - more blatant profiteering. Much to dislike but Legoland remained cool throughout, they should have made him king... __ From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: I liked the books quite a bit, having never had any problem with wizards myself, I like her style of writing too. I don't like the insto-get-out clause that magic gives you. I saw the Lord of the Rings movies and almost really enjoyed them - part 2 was sublime actually - Trouble was the magic, in the first episode the main hobbit gets a spear the size of a telegraph pole right through his chest pinning him to a concrete pillar! I thought that must be the end and got up to leave but no! He was wearing a magic waistcoat. How it might work I don't know, maybe some sort of quantum superposition? I guess you're supposed to suspend your disbelief at that point but I can't, I have to have a consistent metaphysics or I think the writer is just being lazy. Iain Banks does it in some of his sci-fi, one of his characters will be in an impossible situation with no possible escape and suddenly we find out that he's a shape shifter, which never got mentioned before, and he slides out of an air vent or something. Lazy, lazy... I think if you are going to have spells then they have to be consistently used, if Harry Potter could kill the bad guy with a wave of his wand, why doesn't he do it from a safe distance rather than waiting till he's hanging upside down in a cellar? Sorry. It's a pet peeve. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 1:07 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: Oh my lord! That means you can't abide that English woman, Jo Rowling! Deary me no, Harry Potter and the Gob of Shite. Admittedly I haven't read any of the books and why my (female) friends used to recommend them to me I don't know, but I sat through one of the movies and wanted to gnaw my legs off after 5 minutes. I think I'm a bit too old for Voldemort being past puberty as I am... From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi Ãâà--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak? I don't like any of these guru types who make a fortune out of seekers, even if it is their own choice. I don't like the reliance on quantum physics as a prop for woolly thinking and undeliverable promises or pushing untested folk medicine. I don't like the whole veda is truth thing. Basically my same reasons for disliking the TMO. I am interested in his split from the TMO though, in our old tape cupboard at the academy we had a huge box of videos featuring Deepak with a not to be played sign on them. I gather he went from quite the darling to public enemy number one very swiftly but I never managed to get a straight answer about why from anybody. Usually it was that he changed Marshy's teaching (I thought it was him teaching Marshy about AV) or that he made some personal money out of it which TM bigwigs saw as some sort of ultimate crime. Bizarrely, as they still sell no end of courses in vedic #wisdom promising a fruitful career. Maybe they were annoyed as he was the only one who ever did make
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) I'm much more interested in whether the materialists are content that they have successfully seen off the incursion. Maybe - like we were with the so called intelligent design BS - they react strongly to the ignorance of the argument to slap it down straight away lest tubthumpers use it as an excuse. Doubt it, at least with regard to the ignorance of the argument. Nagel is a *very* highly respected senior philosopher, not some dork from the Discovery Institute. (He's the author of the celebrated essay What Is It Like to Be a Bat? of which I'm sure you've heard.) I hope that's not an argument from authority, probably the least convincing way of winning an argument. All of the ID crowd were highly respected PHDs, just not any more, chortle. That hasn't stopped them from *accusing* him of ignorance in some aspects of his argument, but his defenders (some of whom are equally as prominent as his critics) have pointed out that the critics have significantly misconstrued him--in at least a few cases, apparently deliberately. Anyway, yes, they're concerned about the potential use of his book by creationist types--giving aid and comfort to the enemy and all that. They especially don't like the book's subtitle--Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Strong statement. However, as I noted, Nagel doesn't suggest--indeed, opposes--a theistic alternative. And IMHO, that the book's thesis might be misused is a poor reason to attack it. It took me 20 minutes to dismiss the ID case, and that included a bike ride to the library for the relevant high school text book. Simples. But they were a bunch of tubthumpers on a mission to get creationism taught in schools as we now know. No one knows of anything that couldn't have got here under it's own steam, baffling and stunning though it all is whenever someone comes a major natural mystery it almost always turns out to be something that came pre-adapted to do something else and got co- opted into helping out another part of the organism. The mind is a case in point, like I said about music the other day, it takes many parts of the brain to give us the subjective experience but none of them evolved to do that, I think it's that we join things up and our minds just enlarge and link up emotions and memories or maybe the earliest music played a different part in our social lives and has just got out of hand as far as whatever it's original intention or use was. But it isn't all explained by any means, I get sceptical because the method of explanation used so far (materialist science) has done a pretty damn good job so far. Well, if you don't analyze the explanation philosophically to see whether it's logically coherent, it may seem like it does a good job. Why the use of the term philosophically? Scientifically does the job just as well as it also stands and falls on how coherent - and more importantly - testable it is. (snip) He suggests one potential (nontheistic) solution to fill the explanatory gap, but he offers it only as a possibility, not as a firm conclusion. His main focus is on why there *is* a gap. So, it's one of those irreducible structure things then. If something like the mind can't evolve without help then it's being helped. Don't keep me in suspense, what is his theory. Sum it up, we know the brain evolved, you can even watch it evolve embryonically, so if what the brain does *didn't* evolve or needed a helping hand from something else then I'm all ears. I'm going to refer you to the book. It's a detailed and tightly reasoned argument (but only 128 pages). I'm not good at boiling that kind of thing down, and I wouldn't be able to do justice to it. If Robin were here, he surely could, but he ain't. And as I said, Nagel's suggestion as to an alternative mechanism is tentative and incompletely developed. It's just one possible way to approach the problem. The much more important aspect of the book has to do with the explanatory gap. There's no point talking about alternative mechanisms until you see why neo-Darwinism doesn't--can't--fill the gap; otherwise you can't tell what might be successful in filling it. Well, as I say most of these gaps turn out to be the result of inadequate research. I suppose I can manage 128 pages to satisfy my curiosity. If it's in the library... Or maybe Nagel has done just that and provided science with an argument it can't explain. Until one of us reads the book we won't know. LOL. Well, *you* won't know until
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: I hope that's not an argument from authority, probably the least convincing way of winning an argument. All of the ID crowd were highly respected PHDs, just not any more, chortle. Isn't it fascinating that to some people who couldn't be considered philosophers in a million years, being *called* one confers some kind of noble and exalted status on the person being so named? As I see it, being a philosopher is kinda synonymous with stuck in one's head. It can also be a cover for much darker shit: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/15/philosophy_has_a_sexual_harassment_probl\ em/ http://www.salon.com/2013/08/15/philosophy_has_a_sexual_harassment_prob\ lem/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: I hope that's not an argument from authority, probably the least convincing way of winning an argument. All of the ID crowd were highly respected PHDs, just not any more, chortle. Isn't it fascinating that to some people who couldn't be considered philosophers in a million years, being *called* one confers some kind of noble and exalted status on the person being so named? As I see it, being a philosopher is kinda synonymous with stuck in one's head. It can also be a cover for much darker shit: You Kant be serious? http://www.salon.com/2013/08/15/philosophy_has_a_sexual_harassment_probl\ em/ That's actually quite interesting, looks like some highly respected people need to do some thinking about social awareness and moral responsibility. Probably a paper or two in there somewhere. It's interesting why there are so few female philosophers, same reason there are so few top women chess players perhaps. A simplistic view would be the old Mars/Venus thing. But I think it's less a women are more touchy-feely than that men are more prone to excessive nerdiness, and sometimes to the exclusion of successful relationships or career. Women are maybe more likely to be responsible about their future and more successfully goal directed because of the possibility of having children, there is a nerve in the female brain that judges everything for long term value, whereas a lot of guys can wander about completely clueless except for a top degree in physics or philosophy. I know quite a few of them and a lot of *very* focussed women. Look at the TMO, it always seemed to be the blokes that get *really* serious and drop everything to run off to an academy and spend the rest of their lives doing pranyama. The women generally just integrate it with their careers and don't get too carried away. I remember when Marshy announced the purusha programme a guy put up his hand and said But my problem is I have children And Marshy replied That's not your problem, that's your joy! Which is a rare properly wise remark I think. So maybe the answer is that women are generally long-term smart and men use their smarts to chase rainbows if there's even a microscopic possibility there is a crock of gold at the end. Or maybe that says more about me...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: It's interesting why there are so few female philosophers, same reason there are so few top women chess players perhaps. A simplistic view would be the old Mars/Venus thing. But I think it's less a women are more touchy-feely than that men are more prone to excessive nerdiness, and sometimes to the exclusion of successful relationships or career. Women are maybe more likely to be responsible about their future and more successfully goal directed because of the possibility of having children, there is a nerve in the female brain that judges everything for long term value, whereas a lot of guys can wander about completely clueless except for a top degree in physics or philosophy. I know quite a few of them and a lot of *very* focussed women. Did you notice the lack of women on the list of The Materworks Of Science Fiction list you sent yetsterday? I did, so I counted. There were more citations for works by Philip K. Dick than there were for all women writers combined.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: It's interesting why there are so few female philosophers, same reason there are so few top women chess players perhaps. A simplistic view would be the old Mars/Venus thing. But I think it's less a women are more touchy-feely than that men are more prone to excessive nerdiness, and sometimes to the exclusion of successful relationships or career. Women are maybe more likely to be responsible about their future and more successfully goal directed because of the possibility of having children, there is a nerve in the female brain that judges everything for long term value, whereas a lot of guys can wander about completely clueless except for a top degree in physics or philosophy. I know quite a few of them and a lot of *very* focussed women. Did you notice the lack of women on the list of The Materworks Of Science Fiction list you sent yetsterday? I did, so I counted. There were more citations for works by Philip K. Dick than there were for all women writers combined. Oh yes, when I meet a woman into sci-fi I always say Wow! Most just hate it no matter how much I try and extol it's virtues. The only girl I currently know into SF has a physics degree. What is it that turns women off it generally? I leant the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy to a girl I knew who was top at English literature at uni and she said it was great until they left Earth, and then she lost interest. Dislike of abstraction?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: It's interesting why there are so few female philosophers, same reason there are so few top women chess players perhaps. A simplistic view would be the old Mars/Venus thing. But I think it's less a women are more touchy-feely than that men are more prone to excessive nerdiness, and sometimes to the exclusion of successful relationships or career. Women are maybe more likely to be responsible about their future and more successfully goal directed because of the possibility of having children, there is a nerve in the female brain that judges everything for long term value, whereas a lot of guys can wander about completely clueless except for a top degree in physics or philosophy. I know quite a few of them and a lot of *very* focussed women. Did you notice the lack of women on the list of The Materworks Of Science Fiction list you sent yetsterday? I did, so I counted. There were more citations for works by Philip K. Dick than there were for all women writers combined. Oh yes, when I meet a woman into sci-fi I always say Wow! Most just hate it no matter how much I try and extol it's virtues. The only girl I currently know into SF has a physics degree. What is it that turns women off it generally? I leant the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy to a girl I knew who was top at English literature at uni and she said it was great until they left Earth, and then she lost interest. Dislike of abstraction? Back in the day, I used to hang at the A Change Of Hobbit bookstore in L.A., which specialized in SF and fantasy. Over the years I got to meet many of the best writers of these niche works, and also met a lot of SF groupies. As you say, most of them were men, but NOT so much so that women writers should be so underrepresented on this list. There are a LOT of women SF and fantasy freaks. Then again, a lot of SF is not limited to the cold, stainless steel environments of space. Much of the best of it is easier to identify and empathize with, in ways that appeal to women as much as men. IMO, if I were to dash out a personal Top Ten List of my favorite SF/fantasy writers, at least a few of them would be women. Certainly two that made the list would be Mary Shelley and Ursula K. Le Guin. Some of Doris Lessing's work verged into the realms of SF/fantasy, so I think she deserves to be on that list. As does Margaret Atwood. Madeleine L'Engle, a shoe-in. I would include Anne Rice, who more or less single-handedly reinvented vampire lore. And of course Marion Zimmer Bradley.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: It's interesting why there are so few female philosophers, same reason there are so few top women chess players perhaps. A simplistic view would be the old Mars/Venus thing. But I think it's less a women are more touchy-feely than that men are more prone to excessive nerdiness, and sometimes to the exclusion of successful relationships or career. Women are maybe more likely to be responsible about their future and more successfully goal directed because of the possibility of having children, there is a nerve in the female brain that judges everything for long term value, whereas a lot of guys can wander about completely clueless except for a top degree in physics or philosophy. I know quite a few of them and a lot of *very* focussed women. Did you notice the lack of women on the list of The Materworks Of Science Fiction list you sent yetsterday? I did, so I counted. There were more citations for works by Philip K. Dick than there were for all women writers combined. Oh yes, when I meet a woman into sci-fi I always say Wow! Most just hate it no matter how much I try and extol it's virtues. The only girl I currently know into SF has a physics degree. What is it that turns women off it generally? I leant the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy to a girl I knew who was top at English literature at uni and she said it was great until they left Earth, and then she lost interest. Dislike of abstraction? Back in the day, I used to hang at the A Change Of Hobbit bookstore in L.A., which specialized in SF and fantasy. Over the years I got to meet many of the best writers of these niche works, and also met a lot of SF groupies. As you say, most of them were men, but NOT so much so that women writers should be so underrepresented on this list. There are a LOT of women SF and fantasy freaks. Then again, a lot of SF is not limited to the cold, stainless steel environments of space. Much of the best of it is easier to identify and empathize with, in ways that appeal to women as much as men. IMO, if I were to dash out a personal Top Ten List of my favorite SF/fantasy writers, at least a few of them would be women. Certainly two that made the list would be Mary Shelley and Ursula K. Le Guin. Some of Doris Lessing's work verged into the realms of SF/fantasy, so I think she deserves to be on that list. As does Margaret Atwood. Madeleine L'Engle, a shoe-in. I would include Anne Rice, who more or less single-handedly reinvented vampire lore. And of course Marion Zimmer Bradley. Mary Shelley should definitely be on the list but that would cause uproar from literary types who hate SF. Frankenstein is a great book by any standard but it's the basis of most SF because it's about man's scientific creations running out of control. This fear that we are unleashing something we can't control when we manipulate nature or give our power to our creations must be the biggest theme in the genre. I might go through that list and tick off the ones that fit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: It's interesting why there are so few female philosophers, same reason there are so few top women chess players perhaps. A simplistic view would be the old Mars/Venus thing. But I think it's less a women are more touchy-feely than that men are more prone to excessive nerdiness, and sometimes to the exclusion of successful relationships or career. Women are maybe more likely to be responsible about their future and more successfully goal directed because of the possibility of having children, there is a nerve in the female brain that judges everything for long term value, whereas a lot of guys can wander about completely clueless except for a top degree in physics or philosophy. I know quite a few of them and a lot of *very* focussed women. --- turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Did you notice the lack of women on the list of The Materworks Of Science Fiction list you sent yetsterday? I did, so I counted. There were more citations for works by Philip K. Dick than there were for all women writers combined. --- salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: Oh yes, when I meet a woman into sci-fi I always say Wow! Most just hate it no matter how much I try and extol it's virtues. The only girl I currently know into SF has a physics degree. What is it that turns women off it generally? I leant the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy to a girl I knew who was top at English literature at uni and she said it was great until they left Earth, and then she lost interest. Dislike of abstraction? A lot of people from the Judeo-christian-Islamic background are like that. They simply cannot imagine going anywhere else in the universe, because their views are mostly anthropomorphic or earth-centric.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) I'm much more interested in whether the materialists are content that they have successfully seen off the incursion. Maybe - like we were with the so called intelligent design BS - they react strongly to the ignorance of the argument to slap it down straight away lest tubthumpers use it as an excuse. Doubt it, at least with regard to the ignorance of the argument. Nagel is a *very* highly respected senior philosopher, not some dork from the Discovery Institute. (He's the author of the celebrated essay What Is It Like to Be a Bat? of which I'm sure you've heard.) I hope that's not an argument from authority, probably the least convincing way of winning an argument. All of the ID crowd were highly respected PHDs, just not any more, chortle. Of COURSE it's not an argument from authority. Jeez, it's hard to keep you on track. My point is that while Nagel's argument may be *wrong*, it's unlikely to be *ignorant*, as you had just got done speculating. You obviously didn't know of Nagel's stature, so I was telling you. He's a superstar in the field of philosophy, not just a highly respected PhD. It's one of the reasons the big guns of materialist philosophy have come out in force against his book. (snip) But it isn't all explained by any means, I get sceptical because the method of explanation used so far (materialist science) has done a pretty damn good job so far. Well, if you don't analyze the explanation philosophically to see whether it's logically coherent, it may seem like it does a good job. Why the use of the term philosophically? Because the analysis is philosophical. (duh) Scientifically does the job just as well as it also stands and falls on how coherent - and more importantly - testable it is. Not currently testable. And to the extent that scientific explanations in the areas of mind and consciousness are coherent, it's because they're logically sound. To say that mind and brain are identical, for example, is just not coherent, but the reasons it isn't are of a philosophical nature. Scientists don't tend to be schooled in scientific philosophy. In most areas that doesn't matter, but it very much does in this case. (snip) And as I said, Nagel's suggestion as to an alternative mechanism is tentative and incompletely developed. It's just one possible way to approach the problem. The much more important aspect of the book has to do with the explanatory gap. There's no point talking about alternative mechanisms until you see why neo-Darwinism doesn't--can't--fill the gap; otherwise you can't tell what might be successful in filling it. Well, as I say most of these gaps turn out to be the result of inadequate research. Right. But not this one. It may turn out to be bridgeable, but not on the basis of more research. I suppose I can manage 128 pages to satisfy my curiosity. If it's in the library... I'm not expecting you to be impressed, BTW. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: I hope that's not an argument from authority, probably the least convincing way of winning an argument. All of the ID crowd were highly respected PHDs, just not any more, chortle. Isn't it fascinating that to some people who couldn't be considered philosophers in a million years, being *called* one confers some kind of noble and exalted status on the person being so named? As I see it, being a philosopher is kinda synonymous with stuck in one's head. Isn't it fascinating how often Barry makes himself look ridiculous by completely misconstruing a conversation because he's so eager to put one of his enemies down? And my *goodness*, but he's ignorant. No--it's not *just* ignorance in this case, it's limited intellect. He's incapable of understanding philosophical thinking, has no idea what it's about or what it's for, and hopes dissing it and its practitioners will make him look wise and hip. (Heh heh. So much for his great friend Curtis, eh, Edg?) It can also be a cover for much darker shit: Oops, watch it, Barry. This is very much a pot-calling-the- kettle-black area for you. http://www.salon.com/2013/08/15/philosophy_has_a_sexual_harassment_problem/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: (snip) Oh yes, when I meet a woman into sci-fi I always say Wow! Most just hate it no matter how much I try and extol it's virtues. FWIW, I love SF. Especially hard SF. Like you, I'm bored to tears by fantasy. On the other hand, I *generally* prefer the earth setting to outer space shenanigans. I'm very fussy about portrayals of alien worlds and civilizations; don't think they're done all that well a lot of the time. And I don't care all that much for far-future settings, even if they're on earth. Super-advanced technology begins to become uncomfortably like wizardry, in SF as in life. Ends up being a fairly narrow slice of SF that really rings my chimes, but a good SF story within that slice delights me like almost nothing else. I haven't read any such for far too long. The only girl I currently know into SF has a physics degree. What is it that turns women off it generally? I leant the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy to a girl I knew who was top at English literature at uni and she said it was great until they left Earth, and then she lost interest. Dislike of abstraction?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: I hope that's not an argument from authority, probably the least convincing way of winning an argument. All of the ID crowd were highly respected PHDs, just not any more, chortle. Isn't it fascinating that to some people who couldn't be considered philosophers in a million years, being *called* one confers some kind of noble and exalted status on the person being so named? As I see it, being a philosopher is kinda synonymous with stuck in one's head. It can also be a cover for much darker shit: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/15/philosophy_has_a_sexual_harassment_probl\ em/ http://www.salon.com/2013/08/15/philosophy_has_a_sexual_harassment_prob\ lem/ Newsflash: sexual harassment of women is found in so many fields and career jobs I have lost count. Just try working around the broadcast or TV/video production industry. Most men think all you're good for is an assistant of some kind. Rough going there. Barry, most jobs that don't include taking dictation or getting someone coffee or sticking a thermometer in someone's mouth is rife with sexual discrimination of women. I know women truck drivers and heavy equipment operators who deal with it day in and day out as well. The philosophy 'world' is the least of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: It's interesting why there are so few female philosophers, same reason there are so few top women chess players perhaps. A simplistic view would be the old Mars/Venus thing. But I think it's less a women are more touchy-feely than that men are more prone to excessive nerdiness, and sometimes to the exclusion of successful relationships or career. Women are maybe more likely to be responsible about their future and more successfully goal directed because of the possibility of having children, there is a nerve in the female brain that judges everything for long term value, whereas a lot of guys can wander about completely clueless except for a top degree in physics or philosophy. I know quite a few of them and a lot of *very* focussed women. Did you notice the lack of women on the list of The Materworks Of Science Fiction list you sent yetsterday? I did, so I counted. There were more citations for works by Philip K. Dick than there were for all women writers combined. Oh yes, when I meet a woman into sci-fi I always say Wow! Most just hate it no matter how much I try and extol it's virtues. The only girl I currently know into SF has a physics degree. What is it that turns women off it generally? I leant the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy to a girl I knew who was top at English literature at uni and she said it was great until they left Earth, and then she lost interest. Dislike of abstraction? I love Sci-fi and I am a girl (a woman now, still a girl in the head) and when I was a teenager, that was the bulk of my reading. Herbert and Asimov and other's littered our home. The Forgotten Door by Alexander Key was one of the reasons I got on that kick. I couldn't stop reading them (Sci Fi) for a while, as all the author's started blending as one in my head and twists started becoming the same thing over and over in a different package or a different fear presented, or different magic, based on findings or thought. Like Nabby does not realize I went through all the mystic belief of UFO's right through my early 20's. When I found more interest in spiritual readings, like Autobiography of a Yogi, I thought, What would it matter if a being came here on a man made ship, when people are said to become omni-present and no need for a flying saucer? God! What would the world be like without Orson Welles? Love the guy. If someone can be brilliant enough to present a new way of thinking to me, I am on it. I will listen, whether be in book or vocal, film, or through other actions. Hey, what is that tantric sex thing? LOL . To tell you the truth, my favorite Sci Fi reading has become the experience of all the FFL writers, and their short essays of slapping the enlightened shit either in or out of us all. I was trying to not post near that 100 mark, but as Judy said something like it will taper off after a while. :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
Obbajee, I am determined to stay under 200! (-: From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 9:10 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: It's interesting why there are so few female philosophers, same reason there are so few top women chess players perhaps. A simplistic view would be the old Mars/Venus thing. But I think it's less a women are more touchy-feely than that men are more prone to excessive nerdiness, and sometimes to the exclusion of successful relationships or career. Women are maybe more likely to be responsible about their future and more successfully goal directed because of the possibility of having children, there is a nerve in the female brain that judges everything for long term value, whereas a lot of guys can wander about completely clueless except for a top degree in physics or philosophy. I know quite a few of them and a lot of *very* focussed women. Did you notice the lack of women on the list of The Materworks Of Science Fiction list you sent yetsterday? I did, so I counted. There were more citations for works by Philip K. Dick than there were for all women writers combined. Oh yes, when I meet a woman into sci-fi I always say Wow! Most just hate it no matter how much I try and extol it's virtues. The only girl I currently know into SF has a physics degree. What is it that turns women off it generally? I leant the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy to a girl I knew who was top at English literature at uni and she said it was great until they left Earth, and then she lost interest. Dislike of abstraction? I love Sci-fi and I am a girl (a woman now, still a girl in the head) and when I was a teenager, that was the bulk of my reading. Herbert and Asimov and other's littered our home. The Forgotten Door by Alexander Key was one of the reasons I got on that kick. I couldn't stop reading them (Sci Fi) for a while, as all the author's started blending as one in my head and twists started becoming the same thing over and over in a different package or a different fear presented, or different magic, based on findings or thought. Like Nabby does not realize I went through all the mystic belief of UFO's right through my early 20's. When I found more interest in spiritual readings, like Autobiography of a Yogi, I thought, What would it matter if a being came here on a man made ship, when people are said to become omni-present and no need for a flying saucer? God! What would the world be like without Orson Welles? Love the guy. If someone can be brilliant enough to present a new way of thinking to me, I am on it. I will listen, whether be in book or vocal, film, or through other actions. Hey, what is that tantric sex thing? LOL . To tell you the truth, my favorite Sci Fi reading has become the experience of all the FFL writers, and their short essays of slapping the enlightened shit either in or out of us all. I was trying to not post near that 100 mark, but as Judy said something like it will taper off after a while. :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: It's interesting why there are so few female philosophers, same reason there are so few top women chess players perhaps. A simplistic view would be the old Mars/Venus thing. But I think it's less a women are more touchy-feely than that men are more prone to excessive nerdiness, and sometimes to the exclusion of successful relationships or career. Women are maybe more likely to be responsible about their future and more successfully goal directed because of the possibility of having children, there is a nerve in the female brain that judges everything for long term value, whereas a lot of guys can wander about completely clueless except for a top degree in physics or philosophy. I know quite a few of them and a lot of *very* focussed women. Did you notice the lack of women on the list of The Materworks Of Science Fiction list you sent yetsterday? I did, so I counted. There were more citations for works by Philip K. Dick than there were for all women writers combined. Oh yes, when I meet a woman into sci-fi I always say Wow! Most just hate it no matter how much I try and extol it's virtues. The only girl I currently know into SF has a physics degree. What is it that turns women off it generally? I leant the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy to a girl I knew who was top at English literature at uni and she said it was great until they left Earth, and then she lost interest. Dislike of abstraction? Back in the day, I used to hang at the A Change Of Hobbit bookstore in L.A., which specialized in SF and fantasy. Over the years I got to meet many of the best writers of these niche works, and also met a lot of SF groupies. As you say, most of them were men, but NOT so much so that women writers should be so underrepresented on this list. There are a LOT of women SF and fantasy freaks. Then again, a lot of SF is not limited to the cold, stainless steel environments of space. Much of the best of it is easier to identify and empathize with, in ways that appeal to women as much as men. IMO, if I were to dash out a personal Top Ten List of my favorite SF/fantasy writers, at least a few of them would be women. Certainly two that made the list would be Mary Shelley and Ursula K. Le Guin. Some of Doris Lessing's work verged into the realms of SF/fantasy, so I think she deserves to be on that list. As does Margaret Atwood. Madeleine L'Engle, a shoe-in. I would include Anne Rice, who more or less single-handedly reinvented vampire lore. And of course Marion Zimmer Bradley. Mary Shelley should definitely be on the list but that would cause uproar from literary types who hate SF. Frankenstein is a great book by any standard but it's the basis of most SF because it's about man's scientific creations running out of control. This fear that we are unleashing something we can't control when we manipulate nature or give our power to our creations must be the biggest theme in the genre. I might go through that list and tick off the ones that fit. Mary Shelley does indeed get the credit for Frankenstein, or, the Modern Promethus which implies that not only that God can create humans, but Man himself can also, something very much a possibility these days. Her husband made many comments and suggestions for the book. But Mary's imagination certainly is much in evidence as the driving force of the book. In the first edition (1818), there is no mention of details of apparatus, only a rather vague mention of the 'instruments of life' whereas in the third edition (1831, after her husband had been in the grave for some seven years), we find mention of electrical experiments and other revised passages. Her husband must have had some influence though, on the character of the work - it seems a reasonable speculation that Mary and Percy discussed these things at length, she was only 21 when her novel was published, and they were young and very curious indeed. One of Percy's comments about creation was 'That which is incapable of proof itself is no proof of anything else We must prove design before we can infer a designer.' This some thirty years before Darwin published his seminal work. When he was 19 he wrote: 'There Is No God. This negation must be understood solely to affect a creative Deity. The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit co-eternal with the universe remains unshaken. She wrote this in her journal in 1824 (her husband died in 1822 at the age of 29): 'At the age of twenty six I am in the condition of an aged person all my old friends are
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: I hope that's not an argument from authority, probably the least convincing way of winning an argument. All of the ID crowd were highly respected PHDs, just not any more, chortle. Isn't it fascinating that to some people who couldn't be considered philosophers in a million years, being *called* one confers some kind of noble and exalted status on the person being so named? As I see it, being a philosopher is kinda synonymous with stuck in one's head. It can also be a cover for much darker shit: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/15/philosophy_has_a_sexual_harassment_probl\ em/ http://www.salon.com/2013/08/15/philosophy_has_a_sexual_harassment_prob\ lem/ Newsflash: sexual harassment of women is found in so many fields and career jobs I have lost count. Just try working around the broadcast or TV/video production industry. Most men think all you're good for is an assistant of some kind. Rough going there. Barry, most jobs that don't include taking dictation or getting someone coffee or sticking a thermometer in someone's mouth is rife with sexual discrimination of women. I know women truck drivers and heavy equipment operators who deal with it day in and day out as well. The philosophy 'world' is the least of it. I think the point is that in a place where people think for a living, and about what it means to be human and where morals come from etc, it's probably quite unexpected to find a bastion of male supremacy. You'd think they be a bit more enlightened about their effects on others. Maybe all that navel gazing has kept them in the dark about reality, whatever that is...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Oh yes, when I meet a woman into sci-fi I always say Wow! Most just hate it no matter how much I try and extol it's virtues. FWIW, I love SF. Especially hard SF. Like you, I'm bored to tears by fantasy. On the other hand, I *generally* prefer the earth setting to outer space shenanigans. I'm very fussy about portrayals of alien worlds and civilizations; don't think they're done all that well a lot of the time. And I don't care all that much for far-future settings, even if they're on earth. Super-advanced technology begins to become uncomfortably like wizardry, in SF as in life. Ends up being a fairly narrow slice of SF that really rings my chimes, but a good SF story within that slice delights me like almost nothing else. I haven't read any such for far too long. So much of it these days is just space opera, with intelligent space ships crewed by humans with computers for eyes and all manner of physical and mental upgrades. Iain Banks does this well but generally It's very boring and I haven't found a good new writer for a while. So I stick to my Masters list and tick them off one by one... The only girl I currently know into SF has a physics degree. What is it that turns women off it generally? I leant the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy to a girl I knew who was top at English literature at uni and she said it was great until they left Earth, and then she lost interest. Dislike of abstraction?
