--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon
as
we enter the domain of devas we've got
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
a basis for quantification. From it we can construct
testable hypotheses, e.g., people who
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
a basis for
Sorry Akasha,
This is the point at which a conversation via the web gets tiresome
and nit-picky. First I claim the irrelevance of your contribution,
then you claim the irrelevance of mine.
This reply is in no way an attempt at rebuttal.
Perhaps, if we had been in the same room we would have
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
a basis for
This came from a talk given by an expert on Vastu sent by MMY to the
MUM campus to review the campus some years ago. Actually, I think it
may have been asuras, and not devas. I don't remember very well.
Anyway, this seemed to be coming, not from MMY, but from the
traditional understanding of
Frankly I don't think we are really disagreeing on much of anything.
The issue, quite minor, appears to be in one or both parties not fully
seeing the point the other is making. And this can lead to claims that
the counter points are not relevant to the prior point made -- though
relevant in the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL
Thanks for your reply. No I'm not LBS (really), but maybe I should
take that as a compliment. Anyway, please excuse any stupidity on my
part. This seems to be ending amicably.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Frankly I don't think we are really
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your reply. No I'm not LBS (really), but maybe I should
take that as a compliment. Anyway, please excuse any stupidity on
my part. This seems to be ending amicably.
Don't want to interrupt, but what's LBS?
LBS = LB Shriver, who posted here a lot in the past and espoused a process
= product philosophy.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Something along the following lines:
A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from everything else
by some human being who puts a fence around it. Having done this,
that property gets divided on a grid such that
Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as
we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm
dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in
the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we
are very far from that right now!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as
we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
Houston within a scientific paradigm.
Because there are elements in the theory that are not (yet)
observable? That does not
--- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. But of course as
soon as
we enter the domain of devas we've got
problems
Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that
I'm
dismissing
But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very science that later
embraced them and much later found evidence for them.
The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. Scientists
do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky explanation
for how things work and test it
lol @peter!!! very funny!!!
- Original Message -
From:
Peter
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 1:25
PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV
Hypothesis
--- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: --- In FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very science that later
embraced them and much later found evidence for them.
The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. Scientists
do not necessarily want to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as
we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm
dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in
the air as a myth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LOL! I get this image of Bevan and King Tony tripping
on mescaline rolling around on the ground with
bugged-out eyes screaming, Right here man, right
here! It's a power spot!
Just in passing, many moons ago while
omg, I mean Akasha:
You usually have very astute observations to make on FFL. In this
case, I am quite disappointed. The question is not by what mental
mechanisms scientists come up with new ideas. I was addressing what
makes a particular set of ideas be considered worthwhile to follow
up on.
Dear Judy,
Your comments sound like a description of an idealized scientific
world, where science is conducted in a sociological vacuum. Please
refer to my response to Akasha on this topic for more of my opinion
on this.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
a basis for quantification. From it we can construct
testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes
with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages
than those in
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning
behind why a northern facing entrance to a building
lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those living
in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis even
be created
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon
as
we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm
dismissing such an
Love that word: zeitgeist
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think two things are confounded here. There are the
empirical findings that correlate south facing
entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths, etc.,
compared to north facing entranced homes.
One of those great words that you don't get to use too
often but it really captures your intent at times.
--- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Love that word: zeitgeist
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think two things are confounded here.
Your history of science lecture is a all good and fine. I agree with
the essentials of everything your wrote. Making a lot of good points
does not however make a good counter to the two points in question.
They are not relevant, per my view, of the two quesions at hand.
1) Elements or predictions
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
a basis for quantification. From it we can construct
testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live
Vedic reasoning is an oxymoron, just like silent cry or Dodge Ram.
There is no such thing. It's a system of belief, pure and simple.
I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came from the
north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being
slaughtered and having their
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of those great words that you don't get to use too
often but it really captures your intent at times.
Zeitgeist of theory.
Many conceptual Gestalts.
I said Gesundheit.
Yahoo! Groups
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vedic reasoning is an oxymoron, just like silent cry or Dodge Ram.
There is no such thing. It's a system of belief, pure and simple.
Um, perhaps there are some flaws in vedic logic and reasoning systems
that can be argued.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as
we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm
dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in
the air as a myth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Oh, I see. I jumped into this conversation without having read any
of its preamble. I thought you wanted to know how SV justifies
itself. What I gave you is from the mythology that comes with the
Vastu package prior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very science that later
embraced them and much later found evidence for them.
The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. Scientists
do not necessarily want to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
a basis for quantification. From it we can construct
testable hypotheses, e.g., people who
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Vedic reasoning is an oxymoron, just like silent cry or Dodge
Ram.
There is no such thing. It's a system of belief, pure and simple.
I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came from
the
north, and I bet
--- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very
science that later
embraced them and much later found evidence for
them.
The SV mythology does not arise from such an
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Vedic reasoning is an oxymoron, just like silent cry or Dodge
Ram.
There is no such thing. It's a system of belief, pure and simple.
I'll buy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very
science that later
embraced them and much later
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Vedic reasoning is an oxymoron, just like silent cry
or Dodge
Ram.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Modern scientific thought is based on Newtonian Gravity? Not for the
last 90 years or so. Ever heard of Einsteinian Relativity?
Newtonian Gravitational theory was quite fundamental for hundreds of
years, but has been proven to be a good approximation of reality as
long as nothing is moving too
This only goes to prove the point. South is only south because the
first mapmakers lived in what is now called the northern hemisphere.
They decided they wanted to be on top (probably men), so they drew
maps with their countries above all those nasty, dark-skinned people
who lived below them.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Modern scientific thought is based on Newtonian Gravity? Not for the
last 90 years or so. Ever heard of Einsteinian Relativity?
Newtonian Gravitational theory was quite fundamental for hundreds of
years, but has been
45 matches
Mail list logo
