[FairfieldLife] RE: Going out of my mind?
(snip) Woo certainly can be fun. I just do not think it is real. The reason I think enlightenment is real is it is the realisation that there is nothing more to life than what one has already experienced all one's life. The search for something beyond does not discover something beyond (though at times it seems as if there is), it rather exhausts all the ideas one has that there is something beyond, and then one is left with what has always been. Nothing new under the Sun. So as M said, 'nothing ever happened'. So in the end, you achieved nothing, got nothing. There is a certain peace of mind in having gotten rid of a lot of speculation you thought was real because you are no longer seeking something more. Like waking up from a dream, you have not accomplished anything because an hallucination naturally stopped. This, to me, is a tragedy for you. Hopefully, before you die, you will wake up from this terrible hallucination. Life is so much more than this. It is also not possible that life would be structured in this way. For there to be nothing more is not possible. You came from nothing but here you are. You claim there is nothing after, nothing, in fact, at all. Maybe I am missing your definition of nothing here but to me nothing means zero, emptiness, no consciousness, no being. And to find oneself seeking nothing more is not where I ever want my life to land me. You might as well be nothing at that point. You have not escaped your illusions, you have floundered dead into the center of one. I hope life will find itself willing and able to lift you out of it because it is not a place of the final truth of things. If something seems really strange and mysterious and incomprehensible, is it always necessary to formulate an explanation or an hypothesis or theory about it? Being in a place where you just do not know is not a bad place. I like to speculate, but nothing I say is really true, it's a picture, an incomplete snapshot of a mental model in my mind. It may or may not have utility, for me or for anyone else. To argue endlessly about what cannot be seen, heard, touched, felt, and smelt is a fool's errand. You say nothing you say is really true. Does this mean that is so for that statement? This kind of thing can go around in an endless loop. Same as someone saying I don't have beliefs. That, of course is a belief. And to speculate or argue endlessly about what can not be seen or heard... is such a limited/limiting statement. If you have not seen or heard or touched or felt something does not mean you won't or can't - eventually - or that others have not. You just require proof other than their word that they have and so depending upon your definition or the degree or the form of the proof that you require beyond the person's testimony about such things you may or may not believe them or the fact that these 'unknowns' exist. Sometimes discussing and probing these things produces useful experience and it surely means that one is open to finding out, not closed and certain of the reality that they simply don't exist or we can never come to know them. I was gratified to be able to answer promptly. I said I don't know. -- Mark Twain
[FairfieldLife] Re: Going out of my mind?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: Re Woo seems to rejoice in them, and it often seems as if something as mundane as evidence is not necessary to determine truth.: Thanks for your reply. I agree with what you're saying. The only thing I don't rule out is that there may be some woo stuff going on (*just* possibly telepathy? precognition?) that is not amenable to scientific analysis as it's beyond the control of the conscious ego and so non-reproducible in an experimental set-up. I leave that possibility open. As I've never myself experienced telepathy (or seen UFOs . . . etc) I don't take it on trust such a thing exists. For the record, I both agree with Xeno's quote, *and* with your caveat. I *have* experienced a number of things for which there is yet an acceptable non-Woo explanation (such as telepathy, seeing siddhis performed, etc.). And, having experienced these things and knowing first-hand that they *can* be experienced (but without a non-Woo explanation for them myself), I do not discount the possibility that there is some non-scientific Woo going down. On the other hand, what I think both of us were commenting on is the *preference* for the Woo Explanation that we seem to see in so many people. They WANT THEIR WOO, and often get really uptight when someone suggests that the Woo they believe in so strongly might be only a...uh...belief. As well as enlightenment being non demonstrable, there are other important human experiences that I doubt could ever be completely reduced to physics - experiences of love, beauty, remorse . . . The map is not the territory. The last statement tends to explain the Woo-preferrers to me. They have bought into an explanation that was given to them for something. For whatever reason, they have decided to *believe* that explanation (map), and have come to believe in it so thoroughly that they now cannot separate it from the phenomenon itself (the territory). I find that in *almost every case* in which I encounter someone who believes so strongly in the Woo Explanation of some esoteric experience or phenomenon *that they have never personally HAD such an experience or witnessed that phenomenon*. They've only read about it or heard about it. Those who have had the actual experiences tend to be a little more flexible. Yes, it may have happened to them, but No, they don't know why or how. Also, I suspect that a lot of new-age stuff like astrology and tarot is really about providing our subconscious with a language and set of symbols to allow it to communicate with the conscious mind via certain ritualistic practices. Or merely providing a ritual in itself. Repetitive action (think drum circles or chanting) can be consciousness-changing. If you performed a ritual once and got high from it (even if there was no legitimate cause-and-effect relationship between the ritual and the high), then they'll keep doing the ritual, and keep getting high. The ritual serves as a trigger mechanism for some part of their brain to push the you're high button. I don't engage in these new-age practices but accounts I've read by people who've taken these routes seriously (we know there are lots of scam artists) suggest I could be right. There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio. And there are more scams in heaven and earth, too. Learning to tell the difference seems to be the real nature of the game. The real players keep learning. The amateurs settle for the first explanation given to them and stop. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@ wrote: s3raphita wrote: Re I will prefer a non-woo explanation over a woo explanation because it is more logically connected to well-established physics . . . : I prefer a non-woo theory also. And Occam's razor suggests we should always go for the simplest explanation. But there's a lot of woo in physics: quantum theory, dark matter, fine tuning, wormholes, . . . Quantum mechanics, the standard model is basically the result of attempting to explain certain observations. The theory is adjusted by plugging in real world measurements. The latest addition is the Higgs boson. This does not mean the theory is actually true, only that it conforms to observation. A lot of physics is speculative. String theory is the most woo, as so far no one seems to have been able to formulate a version that can be tested. Re Woo depends a lot on personal, internal, messy, incoherent world views: Maybe; maybe not. The thing about these psychological put-downs is that they're double-edged. Couldn't you claim that non-woo types are rigid/frigid/emotionally uptight people who are afraid to admit there are more things in Heaven and Earth . . . than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Also, non-woo types can be playing the role of tough guy - the no one makes a monkey out of me kind of act. They think they're just being reasonable; maybe they're just being defensive.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Going out of my mind?
Re Woo seems to rejoice in them, and it often seems as if something as mundane as evidence is not necessary to determine truth.: Thanks for your reply. I agree with what you're saying. The only thing I don't rule out is that there may be some woo stuff going on (*just* possibly telepathy? precognition?) that is not amenable to scientific analysis as it's beyond the control of the conscious ego and so non-reproducible in an experimental set-up. I leave that possibility open. As I've never myself experienced telepathy (or seen UFOs . . . etc) I don't take it on trust such a thing exists. As well as enlightenment being non demonstrable, there are other important human experiences that I doubt could ever be completely reduced to physics - experiences of love, beauty, remorse . . . The map is not the territory. Also, I suspect that a lot of new-age stuff like astrology and tarot is really about providing our subconscious with a language and set of symbols to allow it to communicate with the conscious mind via certain ritualistic practices. I don't engage in these new-age practices but accounts I've read by people who've taken these routes seriously (we know there are lots of scam artists) suggest I could be right. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: s3raphita wrote: Re I will prefer a non-woo explanation over a woo explanation because it is more logically connected to well-established physics . . . : I prefer a non-woo theory also. And Occam's razor suggests we should always go for the simplest explanation. But there's a lot of woo in physics: quantum theory, dark matter, fine tuning, wormholes, . . . Quantum mechanics, the standard model is basically the result of attempting to explain certain observations. The theory is adjusted by plugging in real world measurements. The latest addition is the Higgs boson. This does not mean the theory is actually true, only that it conforms to observation. A lot of physics is speculative. String theory is the most woo, as so far no one seems to have been able to formulate a version that can be tested. Re Woo depends a lot on personal, internal, messy, incoherent world views: Maybe; maybe not. The thing about these psychological put-downs is that they're double-edged. Couldn't you claim that non-woo types are rigid/frigid/emotionally uptight people who are afraid to admit there are more things in Heaven and Earth . . . than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Also, non-woo types can be playing the role of tough guy - the no one makes a monkey out of me kind of act. They think they're just being reasonable; maybe they're just being defensive. We all have messy internal incoherent world views. What I meant to convey (which means I failed to convey) is some world views are less coherent than others, and the mental model has more logical, experiential, and experimental gaps. Science seems to be a procedure to try to close those gaps or make them less glaring. Woo seems to rejoice in them, and it often seems as if something as mundane as evidence is not necessary to determine truth. There are certainly situations where evidence really cannot penetrate. Enlightenment is one example of this. One really has to take it on faith that it is a possible experience. You cannot really show it to anyone. You can hint at it, maybe convince some that it exists. The whole spiritual game revolves around that which is undefined, hidden, invisible. We, here, have all partaken in that to a greater or lesser extent. As we investigate this, we may have experiences that convince us it could be a valid, i.e., real experience, and so are led on. If that does not happen, we drop away. Non woo types certainly can be defensive; sometimes, even in the top science journals you can detect a certain emotional smoldering lying behind what scientists write criticising others in their field. Scientist get attached to their ideas as much as anyone, but they know they are stuck in a game where their idea can go down the tube at any time. With woo, it often does not seem to matter because no matter how outrageous, since evidence is not the major criterion, you can continue to promote it, even in the face of substantial dis-confirming experience. And don't underestimate the fun side of woo theories. As an example, it's certainly *possible* that the human race was seeded by aliens millennia ago. Speculating along those lines can be creepily entertaining. Woo certainly can be fun. I just do not think it is real. The reason I think enlightenment is real is it is the realisation that there is nothing more to life than what one has already experienced all one's life. The search for something beyond does not discover something beyond (though at times it seems as if there is), it rather exhausts all the ideas one has that there is something beyond, and then one is left
[FairfieldLife] RE: Going out of my mind?
Judy Emily, thanks for watching. I got video images are from Google. The music is Adagio for Strings, one of JFK's favorite pieces, broadcast on the radio at the announcement of FDR's death and on TV at the announcement of JFK's death. It's also on the soundtrack for the movie Platoon. Jackie Kennedy arranged a concert the Monday after his death with the National Symphony Orchestra and they played to an empty hall. The concert went out on radio. In 2004, listeners of the BBC's Today program voted Adagio for Strings the saddest classical work ever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adagio_for_Strings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adagio_for_Strings I teared up quite a bit while making the video. So much promise from a great man and such a terrible loss for our county. I truly believe had Kennedy lived we would not have seen the escalation of war and loss of life in Vietnam that we did with Johnson and Nixon. I remember the day of Kennedy's assassination I was a student at Wayne State University. I had been running indoor track and remember going outside and hearing church bells tolling. The other day, I asked Mom what she remembered. She said that it was the only time she ever saw Dad cry. He was the same age as Kennedy, both served during WWII in the South Pacific. A brother-in-arms is a powerful bond. The Funeral Bell by Henry David Thoreau One more is gone Out of the busy throng That tread these paths; The church-bell tolls, Its sad knell rolls To many hearths. Flower-bells toll not, Their echoes roll not Upon my ear; There still, perchance, That gentle spirit haunts A fragrant bier. Low lies the pall, Lowly the mourners all Their passage grope; No sable hue Mars the serene blue Of heaven's cope. In distant dell Faint sounds the funeral bell; A heavenly chime; Some poet there Weaves the light-burthened air Into sweet rhyme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adagio_for_Strings ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I just watched it. It's stunning, raunchy. I've seen an awful lot of JFK tribute videos in the past 50 years, and I think this is the best. Simple and understated, but incredibly powerful. Emily wrote: Raunchy, this video was really good; brought tears to my eyes
[FairfieldLife] RE: Going out of my mind?
Re I will prefer a non-woo explanation over a woo explanation because it is more logically connected to well-established physics . . . : I prefer a non-woo theory also. And Occam's razor suggests we should always go for the simplest explanation. But there's a lot of woo in physics: quantum theory, dark matter, fine tuning, wormholes, . . . Re Woo depends a lot on personal, internal, messy, incoherent world views: Maybe; maybe not. The thing about these psychological put-downs is that they're double-edged. Couldn't you claim that non-woo types are rigid/frigid/emotionally uptight people who are afraid to admit there are more things in Heaven and Earth . . . than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Also, non-woo types can be playing the role of tough guy - the no one makes a monkey out of me kind of act. They think they're just being reasonable; maybe they're just being defensive. And don't underestimate the fun side of woo theories. As an example, it's certainly *possible* that the human race was seeded by aliens millennia ago. Speculating along those lines can be creepily entertaining. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: The brain seems to have a model of the body stored somewhere, somehow. Meditators sometimes experience this as seeing the body with eyes closed during meditation, which is interesting because the image of the body never includes the head, only the way the body looks like from the head during waking. It would seem the information for this internal image comes from the visual system, which has that perspective on how the body looks. Out of body experiences have been produced using laboratory methods, so it certainly seems possible that a woo factor need not be involved. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823141057.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823141057.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711081249.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711081249.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130922205931.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130922205931.htm A spiritual path is just a special sort of illusion, and people who hold to such views do tend to be threatened when those illusions are questioned, or seem to be undermined by science which has been eroding spiritual and religious beliefs for centuries. As for authfriend's beliefs in this regard, as least for the point of argument she sometimes seems to hold some esoteric ideas, but unless she specifically states just what she believes in this regard, I am not sure at all what she believes. Her highly argumentative stance here might just be a product of her personality tendencies, and have less to do with what she thinks is true. After all, if you post something here, it is a near certainly that she will find something wrong with it. It is not an absolute certainty because on rare occasions she has actually agreed with something you have said. I have tendencies too, for example, I will prefer a non-woo explanation over a woo explanation because it is more logically connected to well established physics, chemistry, or biology for which there is wide agreement for many basic functionalities of the world observed in these disciplines. Woo depends a lot on personal, internal, messy, incoherent world views. The human mind does not seem to be naturally adept at creating coherent models of its experience but rather formulates these as the result of evolutionary forces that worked to ensure survival. Now that it is far less likely that an individual will die as a result of being eaten or lack of shelter etc. - the world views that were crazy in the far past were exterminated speedily when they did not work - but now they proliferate at an amazing pace and spread verbally through a society or group. They still bring death. The killing of doctors who perform abortions and 9/11 represent world models that spread from individual minds to a larger group. One only need to look at opposing political parties of any nation to see untested world views in practice. FLL itself shows little conformity between the world views of individuals of our strange little population here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: I think what she's trying to say is that the scientists left out The Woo Factor. Cultists always need The Woo Factor. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: This seems like it may explain out-of-my-body-into-somebody-else's-body experiences, but not just plain old out-of-body experiences. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: http://www.livescience.com/41128-out-of-body-experiences-explained.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Going out of my mind?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: The brain seems to have a model of the body stored somewhere, somehow. Meditators sometimes experience this as seeing the body with eyes closed during meditation, which is interesting because the image of the body never includes the head, only the way the body looks like from the head during waking. It would seem the information for this internal image comes from the visual system, which has that perspective on how the body looks. Out of body experiences have been produced using laboratory methods, so it certainly seems possible that a woo factor need not be involved. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823141057.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711081249.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130922205931.htm As a general rule, I try to avoid discussing experiences with those who have never had them. It's pretty clear that the people trying to sound authoritative about OOB experiences haven't ever budged from their bodies and never will. :-) But the internal body model sounds pretty good to me. The mind tends to try to replicate, even in its fantasies and/or travels outside the body (I am open to either possibility, without attachment to either one), tends to be looking out of a very human pair of eyes, within a very human body. A spiritual path is just a special sort of illusion, and people who hold to such views do tend to be threatened when those illusions are questioned, or seem to be undermined by science which has been eroding spiritual and religious beliefs for centuries. I completely agree, which is why I wrote my The Woo Factor post recently. *Nothing* pisses off a person who has bought into an illusion for many years more than someone pointing out that it's probably an illusion. As for authfriend's beliefs in this regard, as least for the point of argument she sometimes seems to hold some esoteric ideas, but unless she specifically states just what she believes in this regard, I am not sure at all what she believes. I believe that this is intentional on her part. She likes to say things without really ever saying anything about what *she* believes. That's so that she can lash out later when someone attributes to her a belief she hinted at mightily, but was too wussy to commit to. Her highly argumentative stance here might just be a product of her personality tendencies, and have less to do with what she thinks is true. After all, if you post something here, it is a near certainly that she will find something wrong with it. True that. After all, I'm one of the only one of her declared enemies left. The way she sees things, she's GOT to challenge everything I say. Especially if a few other people on the forum have been guilty of the Cardinal Sin of having pleasant conversations with me. :-) What's most fascinating is that she really seems to believe that no one has noticed this.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Going out of my mind?
Apparently everything on earth came from outer space, including the carbon that makes life possible. Everything came from somewhere - you can't create something out of nothing. If everything came from outer space, it's not a stretch to think that these same elements could create life elsewhere. The earth is traveling at thousands of miles per hour around the sun; the solar system is spinning very fast in the galaxy; and the universe seems to be folding in waves. So, it's no wonder Bucky Fuller called our planet 'Spaceship Earth'. Nobody seems to know how the Puma Punkha megaliths were shaped without the benefit of modern tools. It sometimes boggles the mind how advanced our ancestors were. Has anyone ever tried to drill a deep hole into a granite block weighing 10 tons? Maybe we've had help along the way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku On 11/25/2013 12:46 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: And don't underestimate the fun side of woo theories. As an example, it's certainly *possible* that the human race was seeded by aliens millennia ago. Speculating along those lines can be creepily entertaining.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Going out of my mind?
This seems like it may explain out-of-my-body-into-somebody-else's-body experiences, but not just plain old out-of-body experiences. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: http://www.livescience.com/41128-out-of-body-experiences-explained.html http://www.livescience.com/41128-out-of-body-experiences-explained.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Going out of my mind?
I think what she's trying to say is that the scientists left out The Woo Factor. Cultists always need The Woo Factor. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: This seems like it may explain out-of-my-body-into-somebody-else's-body experiences, but not just plain old out-of-body experiences. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: http://www.livescience.com/41128-out-of-body-experiences-explained.html
