Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

well, it's also as you said previously, Richard, experiencing unbounded 
awareness is pretty much its own verification. 

 I remember, as an aside, someone asking Maharishi, (this was on a tape), why 
is the experience of unbounded awareness blissful.  His response was that, that 
is its nature.  The person kept pressing him, and finally he said, "why is 
water wet?, why does fire burn?.  It is its nature.
 

 Sure, I guess you can unpack the experience of unbounded awareness we can have 
when we meditate, but it appears to me, at least, to be an enjoyable experience 
at the time we experience it, and when that broadened awareness carries over 
into activity, or even sleeping and dreaming as well, although in my case, I 
don't notice it in those other two states as much.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/24/2014 7:40 PM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 >
 
   Richard, you want something silly?  I give you something silly.
 
 
 Barry is having a near panic attack, pleading, insisting that someone explain 
to him the importance of the experience of unbounded awareness.  I guess he's 
got a turd he wants to drop on that or something.
 
 
 But, here. Get this.  Ask Barry to explain, how as a declared atheist, he 
explains karma, and rebirth, (which he is on record of buying into), and he 
mumbles, "It's not important.  It doesn't matter. No, not important at all"
 
 
 Richard, explain that to me, please,it you can.
 
 
 Go figure?  No. I haven't figured that out.


 >
 The condition is called cognitive dissonance - that's when a person holds two 
or more conflicting beliefs at the same time. Barry used to be a professed 
Buddhist who believed in karma and a Self or Spirit that reincarnates after 
biological death. 
 
 Logically in order for metempsychosis to work there must be a reincarnating 
soul-monad - a self that reincarnates - a "person" that reaps the karma of past 
or present actions. But  the historical Buddha denied the existence of the 
Atman. Go figure. 
 
 Barry posted this information to  several years ago and 
he also mentioned on FFL his belief in the Tibetan Bardo state. Barry 
apparently studied American Buddhism under the Zen Master Rama and converted in 
1977.
 
 This sets up the dissonance conflict because some people get confused by not 
understanding why some people who go around doing good and have good 
intentions, are yet forced to suffer and vice-versa - many times people that go 
around doing bad things, get rewarded. The theory of karma or causation is 
almost inconceivable.
 
 So, what happened to Barry is simple: after living in NE for so many years, he 
obviously has succumbed to peer pressure and has been turned into a materialist 
or a naive realist. You can understand how easy it is to get mentally 
brain-washed by reading about young people that go radical after watching just 
a single video. Some people are very susceptible to suggestion. Go figure.
 
 It is sometimes very difficult to stay on a spiritual path when your own 
family and friends don't believe in anything and you feel like a stranger in a 
strange land. Sometimes people tend to conform to the level of consciousness 
that surrounds them and they begin to reflect that on social media. It's not 
complicated.. 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:punditster@... wrote :
 
 On 10/24/2014 8:44 AM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

 This sounds like a pretzeling "moment" 

 >
 It seems dirt simple to me. We are all bound by karma, which means actions, 
past and present. If a person does good deeds, he or she will be reborn in a 
better life. On the other hand, if a person does bad things, in the past or 
present, he or she will get reborn in hell, or a less than satisfactory 
situation. It's not complicated. 
 
 In some rare cases, if a person follows a spiritual path, does the work and 
realizes enlightenment, that person, if he or she has really good karma, may 
not have to be reborn again, unless they choose to do so, to help the rest of 
the world get free. But, you are only going to get as much enlightenment as you 
are going to get.
 
 So, based on my experience, what I've been told and what I have figured out - 
I believe in Life; what it does to you and what you do back. 
 >
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:punditster@... wrote :
 
 

 
 Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for Bruce 
Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again Christian. What about 
Barry's claim that a "belief in God is a form of mental illness." 
 >
 On 10/24/2014 12:03 AM, blue_bungalow_2@... mailto:blue_bungalow_2@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 >
 This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the 
 non-weapon part, of an exclusively weapons project, in which 
 one of them was den

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/24/2014 7:40 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>


Richard, you want something silly?  I give you something silly.


Barry is having a near panic attack, pleading, insisting that someone 
explain to him the importance of the experience of unbounded 
awareness.  I guess he's got a turd he wants to drop on that or something.


But, here. Get this.  Ask Barry to explain, how as a declared atheist, 
he explains karma, and rebirth, (which he is on record of buying 
into), and he mumbles, "It's not important.  It doesn't matter. No, 
not important at all"


Richard, explain that to me, please,it you can.

Go figure?  No. I haven't figured that out.

>
/The condition is called cognitive dissonance - that's when a person 
holds two or more conflicting beliefs at the same time. Barry used to be 
a professed Buddhist who believed in karma and a Self or Spirit that 
reincarnates after biological death.


//Logically in order for //metempsychosis to work there must be a 
reincarnating soul-monad - a self that reincarnates - a "person" that 
reaps the karma of past or present actions. But  the historical Buddha 
denied the existence of the Atman. Go figure.//

//
//Barry posted this information to  several years 
ago and he also mentioned on FFL his belief in the Tibetan Bardo state. 
Barry apparently studied American Buddhism under the Zen Master Rama and 
converted in 1977.

/
//This sets up the dissonance conflict because some people get confused 
by not understanding why some people who go around doing good and have 
good intentions, are yet forced to suffer and vice-versa - many times 
people that go around doing bad things, get rewarded. The theory of 
karma or causation is almost inconceivable.


So, w///hat happened to Barry is simple: after living in NE for so many 
years, he obviously has succumbed to peer pressure and has been turned 
into a materialist or a naive realist. ///You can understand how easy it 
is to get mentally brain-washed by reading about young people that go 
radical after watching just a single video. Some people are very 
susceptible to suggestion. Go figure.


/It is sometimes very difficult to stay on a spiritual path when your 
own family and friends don't believe in anything and you feel like a 
stranger in a strange land. Sometimes people tend to conform to the 
level of consciousness that surrounds them and they begin to reflect 
that on social media. It's not complicated..


/
>



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

On 10/24/2014 8:44 AM, steve.sundur@...  
[FairfieldLife] wrote:



This sounds like a pretzeling "moment"


>
/It seems dirt simple to me. We are all bound by karma, which
means actions, past and present. If a person does good deeds, he
or she will be reborn in a better life. ///On the other hand, if a
person does bad things, in the past or present, he or she will get
reborn in hell, or a less than satisfactory situation. /It's
not complicated.//

In some rare cases, if a person follows a spiritual path, does the
work and realizes enlightenment, that person, if he or she has
really good karma, may not have to be reborn again, unless they
choose to do so, to help the rest of the world get free. //But,
you are only going to get as much enlightenment as you are going
to get.//
//
//So, based on my experience, what I've been told and what I have
figured out - *I believe in Life; what it does to you and what you
do back. */
>



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
, 
 wrote :




/Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's
preference for Bruce Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn
is a born-again Christian. What about Barry's claim that a
"belief in God is a form of mental illness." /


/>/
On 10/24/2014 12:03 AM, blue_bungalow_2@...
 [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>


This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the
non-weapon part, of an exclusively weapons project, in which
one of them was denied security clearance.


>
/This is an example of cognitive dissonance - the mental
stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds
two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the
same time.//
//
//What I'm trying to do is alert Barry that he is exhibiting
some roughness by posting contradictory messages to the
group. Everyone already knows that Barry believes in Buddhas,
karma, and reincarnation and that he bought and read Sam
Harris' new book. ///Everyone already knows that (except
apparently Xeno).

/The thing that doesn't make any sense is, why Barry didn't
understand what Harris wrote. It seems

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Richard, you want something silly?  I give you something silly. 

 Barry is having a near panic attack, pleading, insisting that someone explain 
to him the importance of the experience of unbounded awareness.  I guess he's 
got a turd he wants to drop on that or something.
 

 But, here. Get this.  Ask Barry to explain, how as a declared atheist, he 
explains karma, and rebirth, (which he is on record of buying into), and he 
mumbles, "It's not important.  It doesn't matter. No, not important at all"
 

 Richard, explain that to me, please,it you can.
 

 Go figure?  No. I haven't figured that out.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/24/2014 8:44 AM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

 This sounds like a pretzeling "moment" 

 >
 It seems dirt simple to me. We are all bound by karma, which means actions, 
past and present. If a person does good deeds, he or she will be reborn in a 
better life. On the other hand, if a person does bad things, in the past or 
present, he or she will get reborn in hell, or a less than satisfactory 
situation. It's not complicated. 
 
 In some rare cases, if a person follows a spiritual path, does the work and 
realizes enlightenment, that person, if he or she has really good karma, may 
not have to be reborn again, unless they choose to do so, to help the rest of 
the world get free. But, you are only going to get as much enlightenment as you 
are going to get.
 
 So, based on my experience, what I've been told and what I have figured out - 
I believe in Life; what it does to you and what you do back. 
 >
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:punditster@... wrote :
 
 

 
 Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for Bruce 
Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again Christian. What about 
Barry's claim that a "belief in God is a form of mental illness." 
 >
 On 10/24/2014 12:03 AM, blue_bungalow_2@... mailto:blue_bungalow_2@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 >
 This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the 
 non-weapon part, of an exclusively weapons project, in which 
 one of them was denied security clearance.




 >
 This is an example of cognitive dissonance - the mental stress or discomfort 
experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, 
ideas, or values at the same time.
 
 What I'm trying to do is alert Barry that he is exhibiting some roughness by 
posting contradictory messages to the group. Everyone already knows that Barry 
believes in Buddhas, karma, and reincarnation and that he bought and read Sam 
Harris' new book. Everyone already knows that (except apparently Xeno). 
 
 The thing that doesn't make any sense is, why Barry didn't understand what 
Harris wrote. It seems pretty simple to me. Harris makes a clear case for the 
value of spirituality, which he bases on his experiences in Buddhist 
meditation. 
 
 Go figure.

 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Lawson, Skip was my dissertation advisor and I remember when he was working 
with Langer on this paper. 
 

 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:34 PM, "lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
   

     The late Skip Alexander, who used to head the Psychology Dept at MUM, 
co-edited a book that examined post-maslow development.
He wrote the chapter on Vedic Psychology, and prominent  
mainstream-psychologists wrote chapters on post-Maslow, -post-Piagetian, etc., 
psychology.
_Higher Stages of Human Development_ -Alexander and Langer, ed.
May still be in print.
[You can't have my autographed copy, sorry]
L

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

When thinking about why people value certain experiences and do certain 
activities, I like Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a guideline. IOW, once 
certain basic needs are met, then a person seeks to satisfy additional needs. 
Which might not be higher but which might simply involve activating more of the 
brain. Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our brain 
that want to be activated? Or are we simply physical organisms seeking 
homeostatis all the time?
Today is Mahalakshmi day. There's a big celebration in the Dome. I haven't 
decided whether I will go or not. Autumn has been so beautiful here. I feel 
happy enough just glancing up from the computer once and a while, out the 
window to the trees and the sky, walking to the post office, doing my everyday 
tasks.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't need to go to the Dome and hopefully 
get blessings from Mahalakshmi in the form of more money and then feel happier. 
I am already feeling happy enough. Much much gratitude...  


  On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, "TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
  

 From: "Michael Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T valuable. I'm 
just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever stepped up to the 
plate and made an objective, scientific case for what that value might be. 

Most teachers or seekers just *assume* that these experiences they have or 
claim to have had are valuable, but when called upon to do so, they can't 
really produce any strong arguments for WHY they are valuable, or WHAT that 
supposed valueis. I'm suggesting that this oversight is epidemic in the world 
of "spiritual practices," the elephant in the room that no one ever talks 
about. The people promoting these practices just *assume* that these 
experiences they're having or seeking are *worth* having or seeking, and debate 
the supposedly best ways of achieving them. But I don't know of very many who 
have taken that "step back," beyond the assumption, and have tried to make a 
case for WHY they're so intent on achieving these things. What is it that they 
hope to "achieve," and WHY would others want to do so?

Answers such as, "Well, I want to have these experiences because Jim Flanegin 
said that I would be a low-vibe slime until I had them the way he has" do not 
count.  :-)  :-)  :-)

It's the same problem I see with religion in general. The people urging others 
to join their religions don'tseem to ever offer any real-world, 
payoff-in-this-lifetime reasons for doing so. They just *assume* that there is 
a payoff, and try to bluff their way through without ever specifying what it 
is. Millions and millions of seekers over the ages, and almost none of them 
have ever come up with a real *value* for all this seeking they're devoting 
their lives to. I'm NOT suggesting that there isn't one, just pointing out that 
no one ever seems to talk about it if there is. 


  

  From: "TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mentalillness
 
 From: "Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 


From: "TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife]" 

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way 
to construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that 
does not alsowreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system.

But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these "experiences 
of unboundedness." That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
every

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Xeno, me too! During some of my early meditations, I just wanted to jump up and 
run out of the room. But I just "knew" that it was what I had been wanting, 
just as I "knew" I was gonna start TM even before the lecturers said anything. 
In retrospect it seems like an amazing time in my life. 

I'll just relay what I told the Jehovah Witnesses when they informed me that 
the bible says TM is the work of the devil: based on my own experience, I think 
TM is a good thing. And I'm willing to risk my soul on that conclusion.
There was nothing more they could say. They walked away.
 

 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:56 PM, "anartax...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
   

     Like you Share, I really did not pay attention to the selling points as I 
had had experiences prior to TM, I was just looking for an easy way to 
meditate, a natural consequence of being lazy. 
The sell was there in the introductory and preparatory lectures and in 
available chart books supposedly showing benefits from the scientific side, but 
I ignored all that at the time. My first few meditations were really rotten, I 
almost quit right there. 
But trying to sell TM to friends who are not really into this kind of thing 
proved more of a challenge. None of my friends ever learned, except for a 
couple, and they never finished the course. A few of my family learned, and 
they all quit too.
I did discover that some of my friends who were teachers, when I criticised the 
quality of the scientific research on TM, would try really had to convince me 
the research was really true. About 1% of research on meditation in general is 
of good quality. Part of that seems to lie with the advertising mentality of 
the TMO.
Dr. Lorin Roche wrote the following:

The Relaxation Response is the term coined by Herbert Benson, M.D., in 1968 or 
so when looking at the physiological data he was getting from TM 
(Transcendental Meditation) meditators who were coming to his lab to be 
measured.
Benson soon got tired of our relentless TM zealotry and the way we (TM teachers 
who were working for him) would sign official research documents with "Jai Guru 
Dev." As TM teachers, we wanted to take the results from his lab and instantly 
use them as part of our advertising and our public lectures. TM at the time had 
meditation centers in every major city in the United States, and teachers on 
most every college campus across the country. It was a hugely popular movement.
But Benson needed to be able to "clone" TM, make it into a 
laboratory-standardized technique that could be replicated and measured at 
other labs. That's what science is. So he decided to de-mystify mantras, and he 
started telling people to just pick their own mantra, such as the word, "ONE." 
This scandalized the whole TM movement, but he had to do it. And truth be told, 
as far as I know, Benson in his 30 years or so of research on the physiology of 
meditation, publishing hundreds of scientific papers, is probably the greatest 
meditation scientist ever. I trust his findings.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's, TM meditators were the guinea pigs of 
choice for scientists, because there were hundreds of thousands of them in the 
United States alone, and tens of thousands in other countries, their training 
was standardized, and they were so well trained that they could come into a 
medical lab and actually MEDITATE while the scientists stuck needles in their 
arms, electrodes on their heads, hands and hearts, and breathe into 
oxygen-consumption measuring masks. It's hard to find people like that! Think 
about it. Who in their right mind would take out part of their day to do such a 
thing? When I used to do this, in the 70's, it meant driving through ugly 
traffic to UCI Medical School, then going into a lab with a thousand rats in 
cages just a couple dozen feet away, the smell of ether in the air, and letting 
the guys in white coats poke me with huge needles and take blood samples while 
I meditated.
TM blew it, by alienating one of the great scientists at work in the field, and 
by pushing bad science — publishing in their ads the results of trial studies. 
But the Buddhists, by comparison, played it very smart, and gradually came to 
be the favorite of physiological researchers. The Buddhists cheerfully 
cooperated with the needs of scientists, it is a match made in heaven because 
Buddhism is a very clinical take on life anyway.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

WRT TM, I never got a snow job or a hard sell. In 1972, I was student teaching 
in a non traditional high school. One of the other student teachers explained 
the bubble diagram to me. Also during this time, my husband and I were doing 
marijuana approx 3 times a year. I wished that I could have that high in a 
natural way. We also did a yoga class. I caught a cold.

Now fast forward three years. I'm in Yes health food restaurant in DC. A 
gorgeous young man comes up to my table, doesn't say a word, and 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/24/2014 8:44 AM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


This sounds like a pretzeling "moment"


>
/It seems dirt simple to me. We are all bound by karma, which means 
actions, past and present. If a person does good deeds, he or she will 
be reborn in a better life. ///On the other hand, if a person does bad 
things, in the past or present, he or she will get reborn in hell, or a 
less than satisfactory situation. /It's not complicated.//


In some rare cases, if a person follows a spiritual path, does the work 
and realizes enlightenment, that person, if he or she has really good 
karma, may not have to be reborn again, unless they choose to do so, to 
help the rest of the world get free. But, you are only going to get 
as much enlightenment as you are going to get.//

//
//So, based on my experience, what I've been told and what I have 
figured out - *I believe in Life; what it does to you and what you do 
back. */

>



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :




/Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference
for Bruce Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again
Christian. What about Barry's claim that a "belief in God is a
form of mental illness." /


/>/
On 10/24/2014 12:03 AM, blue_bungalow_2@...
 [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>


This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the
non-weapon part, of an exclusively weapons project, in which
one of them was denied security clearance.


>
/This is an example of cognitive dissonance - the mental stress or
discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more
contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time.//
//
//What I'm trying to do is alert Barry that he is exhibiting some
roughness by posting contradictory messages to the group. Everyone
already knows that Barry believes in Buddhas, karma, and
reincarnation and that he bought and read Sam Harris' new book.
///Everyone already knows that (except apparently Xeno).

/The thing that doesn't make any sense is, why Barry didn't
understand what Harris wrote. It seems pretty simple to me. Harris
makes a clear case for the value of spirituality, which he bases
on his experiences in Buddhist meditation.

Go figure./

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

This sounds like a pretzeling "moment" 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 

   Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for Bruce 
Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again Christian. What about 
Barry's claim that a "belief in God is a form of mental illness." 

 >
 On 10/24/2014 12:03 AM, blue_bungalow_2@... mailto:blue_bungalow_2@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 >
 This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the 
 non-weapon part, of an exclusively weapons project, in which 
 one of them was denied security clearance.




 >
 This is an example of cognitive dissonance - the mental stress or discomfort 
experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, 
ideas, or values at the same time.
 
 What I'm trying to do is alert Barry that he is exhibiting some roughness by 
posting contradictory messages to the group. Everyone already knows that Barry 
believes in Buddhas, karma, and reincarnation and that he bought and read Sam 
Harris' new book. Everyone already knows that (except apparently Xeno). 
 
 The thing that doesn't make any sense is, why Barry didn't understand what 
Harris wrote. It seems pretty simple to me. Harris makes a clear case for the 
value of spirituality, which he bases on his experiences in Buddhist 
meditation. 
 
 Go figure.
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

/Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for 
Bruce Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again 
Christian. What about Barry's claim that a "belief in God is a form of 
mental illness." /



/>/
On 10/24/2014 12:03 AM, blue_bungalo...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>


This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the
non-weapon part, of an exclusively weapons project, in which
one of them was denied security clearance.


>
/This is an example of cognitive dissonance - the mental stress or 
discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more 
contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time.//

//
//What I'm trying to do is alert Barry that he is exhibiting some 
roughness by posting contradictory messages to the group. Everyone 
already knows that Barry believes in Buddhas, karma, and reincarnation 
and that he bought and read Sam Harris' new book. ///Everyone already 
knows that (except apparently Xeno).


/The thing that doesn't make any sense is, why Barry didn't understand 
what Harris wrote. It seems pretty simple to me. Harris makes a clear 
case for the value of spirituality, which he bases on his experiences in 
Buddhist meditation.


Go figure./

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

/It was intersting to see how Xeno tried to enable Barry, by
leaving out of the discussion all the interesting stuff Barry
believes in - like karma and reincarnation.
/


/>/
On 10/23/2014 10:21 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>


I do not have time to read everything Barry writes. I have no idea
what he believes about karma and reincarnation, we have never
discussed it and I have not read what he said about it, if
anything. We seem to disagree about the nature of free will. No
one on this forum needs enabling to post what they think. Of
course I never intended to include any of what you say.


>
/You've spent what, hours dialoging with Barry about believing in God 
being a form of mental illness, and you don't even know what Barry 
believes in? Go figure./

>


/
//What happened - I thought you guys all read Sam Harris'
book.Go figure.

//Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference
for Bruce Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again
Christian. What about Barry's claim that a "belief in God is a
form of mental illness."
/


/>/


Why are Cockburn's beliefs of import, Barry likes music and in
particular Cockburn's songs and guitar technique. I like Bach
(Lutheran), Mozart (Catholic), Brahms (probably agnostic), Glass
(Jewish-Taoist-Hindu-Toltec-Buddhist); what does that have to do
with [cognitive] dissonance when listening to their music?


>
/Because the words to Cockburn's songs are all about believing in God? 
Did Mozart or Brahms sing about any songs? /

>


/How does that work?/


/>/


Trolls are not that connected to what others post, with comments
skewed tangentially to the ongoing discussion, so you do not need
to know how it works, as that is largely irrelevant to your posts.


>
/You're still trying to enable Barry. Why do you suppose Barry trolls 
here to post duplicitous messages to get angry responses? A belief in 
God is not a form of mental illness. Everybody already knows that. You 
are supposed to listen to the words of the songs BEFORE you post your 
comments. Thanks./

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/23/2014 11:37 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 >
 
 That was a great read, thanks!

 >
 It was intersting to see how Xeno tried to enable Barry, by leaving out of the 
discussion all the interesting stuff Barry believes in - like karma and 
reincarnation.  I do not have time to read everything Barry writes. I have no 
idea what he believes about karma and reincarnation, we have never discussed it 
and I have not read what he said about it, if anything. We seem to disagree 
about the nature of free will. No one on this forum needs enabling to post what 
they think. Of course I never intended to include any of what you say.  
 
 What happened - I thought you guys all read Sam Harris' book. Go figure.
 
 Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for Bruce 
Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again Christian. What about 
Barry's claim that a "belief in God is a form of mental illness."  Why are 
Cockburn's beliefs of import, Barry likes music and in particular Cockburn's 
songs and guitar technique. I like Bach (Lutheran), Mozart (Catholic), Brahms 
(probably agnostic), Glass (Jewish-Taoist-Hindu-Toltec-Buddhist); what does 
that have to do with [cognitive] dissonance when listening to their music? 
 
 How does that work? Trolls are not that connected to what others post, with 
comments skewed tangentially to the ongoing discussion, so you do not need to 
know how it works, as that is largely irrelevant to your posts. 
 >
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:anartaxius@... wrote :
 
 I think you hit on something here I never considered. Social interaction. I do 
not think there is any objective measure by which one considers such 
experiences valuable. There are certain things I like, certain things I do not, 
and I go for the ones I like. While I do not know why, those things I like I 
sometimes like to share with others. A piece of music, a movie. Why did you 
post about Bruce Cockburn's music, his book? I am not sure there is any 
reliable objective measure why one likes something other than a general 
propensity to avoid pain and to maintain comfort. Now if you recall Maharishi 
said the mind seeks a greater field of happiness. Because he was hawking TM, he 
skewed the concept to correspond with his metaphysic (the transcendental field, 
the unified field). You do not need a field. Basically I think it comes down to 
you like stuff, and don't like other stuff. The rationalisations come later. If 
there is any objective evidence for that previous sentence it might be split 
brain experiments. When one side of the brain of people with this condition are 
asked to explain why the other side of the body did something, it makes up an 
explanation. 
 
 
 Thewhole spiritual trip is a post hoc explanation fabricated to explain why 
something you like, in this case some kind of meditation for example, or the 
experience that is supposed to result from that, should be valuable to someone 
else. Spiritual endeavours are really quite a complex bother, all these things 
that one has to practice or think about, so to get someone to get involved in 
it really requires a real snow job. You have to bury them with advertising 
about how great things will be if they do this. You need an intellectual 
framework to explain why doing such atypical things will benefit. To get 
someone to come around to your ideas about what you like, it may not matter if 
it doesn't really work. You make up this because you are socially wired to a 
certain extent, and a successful social interaction results in feeling good. So 
there really is not much of a reason for saying such experiences as spiritual 
experiences are valuable, you hawk them that way, just as you would a certain 
artist, a good restaurant, a walk on a nice evening. Because social 
interactions are on an individual level, I would say the ego is involved, that 
level of personal identity that thinks it is running the show. The ego provides 
the explanations. From a scientific level, the experiments that indicate the 
brain comes to decisions often as far as 7 or 8 seconds prior to that decision 
comes into conscious awareness. That would mean you are not really in control 
of anything. Life goes on this and that way. Stuff happens, you think you do 
stuff. Hawking TM or hawking Bruce or hawking Hawking resuls in satisfaction. 
Whatever floats your boat.
 
 
 Asfor experiences of unboundedness, I really don't think of them that way any 
more. The spiritual trip is the strangest con in the universe. Suppose I put it 
this way: How would you like to be exactly the way you are for as long as you 
are? This is what I am offering you. It will take you about 40 or 50 years, and 
you will have to do all these different things, adopt crazy ideas, do 
exercises, sit quietly, eat special foods, take we

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

It is the closest word I can think of, that describes a life of enlightenment, 
normal. :-). 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 Funny you mention this word. When a journalist in Vlodrop asked who are you 
really Maharishi, he simply said; "I'm just a normal human being". Whereupon 
Bevan afterwards remarked; "today we got a new understanding of what it means 
to be "normal"  :-)

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Just to be clear, at no time have I said I was in the highest state of human 
development. The way I learned it, according to Maharishi, was that 
enlightenment meant simply, normal, and everything continues from there, as it 
always has. Draw your own conclusions. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I have no problem with your friendship with Ann - As she responded, she 
suspects some of what I said is accurate,

M: That would require her to believe that you know my feelings when reading 
posts or whether or not I even read posts between other people here. It would 
be equally bogus for her as it is for you who made this absurd claim. I was a 
bit disappointed when I read that.

 J: but doesn't let that deter a friendship with you. I don't play the chimp's 
games, and you, like the chimp, seem to have a difficult time reconciling, one 
the one hand, denying that I am enlightened, while finding enlightenment a 
bogus concept, to begin with. A Big Confusing Issue with you two. I recommend 
TM for both of you for awhile, say 50 years?? Better get started... :-)

M: Nothing confusing about those two things at all Jim. The more you insist you 
are in the highest state of human development the more glaring the contrast 
with what  and how you post here.   




 

  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote : 
 I'm sure Ann appreciates your straightening her out about me Jim. She was 
making the mistake of trusting her own impression, but now has the enlightened 
perspective from you on my dark motives and inner thoughts.

At first I wondered how you could know about my inner feelings or whether or 
not I even read posts between other posters, but then I remembered: Jim is in a 
superior state of mind and it made more sense. I was amazed that you nailed me 
on "exploiting" Barry's posts although I am still a bit unclear how this 
actually plays out in the, outside of Jim's enlightened head, world.

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about my dark motives, because for a 
second, I read your whole intention as acting out a kindergarten sandbox 
emotional level scene:"NO, Ann is MY friend".
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of cou

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 11:37 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>


That was a great read, thanks!


>
/It was intersting to see how Xeno tried to enable Barry, by leaving out 
of the discussion all the interesting stuff Barry believes in - like 
karma and reincarnation. //

//
//What happened - I thought you guys all read Sam Harris' book.Go 
figure.


Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for 
Bruce Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again Christian. 
What about Barry's claim that a "belief in God is a form of mental 
illness." //

//
//How does that work?/
>



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

I think you hit on something here I never considered. Social 
interaction. I do not think there is any objective measure by which 
one considers such experiences valuable. There are certain things I 
like, certain things I do not, and I go for the ones I like. While I 
do not know why, those things I like I sometimes like to share with 
others. A piece of music, a movie. Why did you post about Bruce 
Cockburn's music, his book? I am not sure there is any reliable 
objective measure why one likes something other than a general 
propensity to avoid pain and to maintain comfort. Now if you recall 
Maharishi said the mind seeks a greater field of happiness. Because he 
was hawking TM, he skewed the concept to correspond with his 
metaphysic (the transcendental field, the unified field). You do not 
need a field. Basically I think it comes down to you like stuff, and 
don't like other stuff. The rationalisations come later. If there is 
any objective evidence for that previous sentence it might be split 
brain experiments. When one side of the brain of people with this 
condition are asked to explain why the other side of the body did 
something, it makes up an explanation.


The whole spiritual trip is a post hoc explanation fabricated to 
explain why something you like, in this case some kind of meditation 
for example, or the experience that is supposed to result from that, 
should be valuable to someone else. Spiritual endeavours are really 
quite a complex bother, all these things that one has to practice or 
think about, so to get someone to get involved in it really requires a 
real snow job. You have to bury them with advertising about how great 
things will be if they do this. You need an intellectual framework to 
explain why doing such atypical things will benefit. To get someone to 
come around to your ideas about what you like, it may not matter if it 
doesn't really work. You make up this because you are socially wired 
to a certain extent, and a successful social interaction results in 
feeling good. So there really is not much of a reason for saying such 
experiences as spiritual experiences are valuable, you hawk them that 
way, just as you would a certain artist, a good restaurant, a walk on 
a nice evening. Because social interactions are on an individual 
level, I would say the ego is involved, that level of personal 
identity that thinks it is running the show. The ego provides the 
explanations. From a scientific level, the experiments that indicate 
the brain comes to decisions often as far as 7 or 8 seconds prior to 
that decision comes into conscious awareness. That would mean you are 
not really in control of anything. Life goes on this and that way. 
Stuff happens, you think you do stuff. Hawking TM or hawking Bruce or 
hawking Hawking resuls in satisfaction. Whatever floats your boat.


As for experiences of unboundedness, I really don't think of them that 
way any more. The spiritual trip is the strangest con in the universe. 
Suppose I put it this way: How would you like to be exactly the way 
you are for as long as you are? This is what I am offering you. It 
will take you about 40 or 50 years, and you will have to do all these 
different things, adopt crazy ideas, do exercises, sit quietly, eat 
special foods, take weird medicines. Want to jump in an try this out? 
In order to get people to do what you like, you have to be more 
devious in your enticements.


It all comes down to 'I like this, and I want you to like it too'. 
Psst, I have some secret stuff that other people do not know, and if 
you let me tell you, and you do what I say, you will be able to say 
every day 'I'm gonna help people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart 
enough, and, doggonit, people like me!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[nablusoss1008]

 Funny you mention this word. When a journalist in Vlodrop asked who are you 
really Maharishi, he simply said; "I'm just a normal human being". Whereupon 
Bevan afterwards remarked; "today we got a new understanding of what it means 
to be "normal"  :-)

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Just to be clear, at no time have I said I was in the highest state of human 
development. The way I learned it, according to Maharishi, was that 
enlightenment meant simply, normal, and everything continues from there, as it 
always has. Draw your own conclusions. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I have no problem with your friendship with Ann - As she responded, she 
suspects some of what I said is accurate,

M: That would require her to believe that you know my feelings when reading 
posts or whether or not I even read posts between other people here. It would 
be equally bogus for her as it is for you who made this absurd claim. I was a 
bit disappointed when I read that.

 J: but doesn't let that deter a friendship with you. I don't play the chimp's 
games, and you, like the chimp, seem to have a difficult time reconciling, one 
the one hand, denying that I am enlightened, while finding enlightenment a 
bogus concept, to begin with. A Big Confusing Issue with you two. I recommend 
TM for both of you for awhile, say 50 years?? Better get started... :-)

M: Nothing confusing about those two things at all Jim. The more you insist you 
are in the highest state of human development the more glaring the contrast 
with what  and how you post here.   




 

  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote : 
 I'm sure Ann appreciates your straightening her out about me Jim. She was 
making the mistake of trusting her own impression, but now has the enlightened 
perspective from you on my dark motives and inner thoughts.

At first I wondered how you could know about my inner feelings or whether or 
not I even read posts between other posters, but then I remembered: Jim is in a 
superior state of mind and it made more sense. I was amazed that you nailed me 
on "exploiting" Barry's posts although I am still a bit unclear how this 
actually plays out in the, outside of Jim's enlightened head, world.

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about my dark motives, because for a 
second, I read your whole intention as acting out a kindergarten sandbox 
emotional level scene:"NO, Ann is MY friend".
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Ge

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife]]

A slight nit: 

 in the 40 years that Benson has been publishing his book he never, not even 
once, published a head-to-head study of TM vs his "Relaxation Response."
 

 In fact, the criticisms that were leveled against Keith Wallace's first study 
apply equally well to Benson's research.
 

 And so, for the past 40 years, comparisons of the effects of two different 
practices were made based on preliminary results of studies that wouldn't be 
published in today's journals.
 

 

 When the American Heart Association meditation practices, they compared all 
the research they could find on every practice, including Benson's Relaxation 
Response.
 

 Their conclusion was that only TM had sufficiently GOOD research with 
sufficiently CONSISTENT effects, to allow them to make a recommendation.
 

 All other practices were given a non-passing grade.
 

 

 Remember: that's 40 years of research coming out of HARVARD UNIVERSITY 
couldn't persuade the AHA to endorse Benson's Relaxation Response.
 

 

 So... to call Benson the "foremost meditation scientist" is pure BS.
 

 To say that "TM blew it" by alienating such a "great scientist" is another bit 
of BS.
 

 L
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Like you Share, I really did not pay attention to the selling points as I had 
had experiences prior to TM, I was just looking for an easy way to meditate, a 
natural consequence of being lazy.  

 The sell was there in the introductory and preparatory lectures and in 
available chart books supposedly showing benefits from the scientific side, but 
I ignored all that at the time. My first few meditations were really rotten, I 
almost quit right there. 
 

 But trying to sell TM to friends who are not really into this kind of thing 
proved more of a challenge. None of my friends ever learned, except for a 
couple, and they never finished the course. A few of my family learned, and 
they all quit too.
 

 I did discover that some of my friends who were teachers, when I criticised 
the quality of the scientific research on TM, would try really had to convince 
me the research was really true. About 1% of research on meditation in general 
is of good quality. Part of that seems to lie with the advertising mentality of 
the TMO.
 

 Dr. Lorin Roche wrote the following:
 

 The Relaxation Response is the term coined by Herbert Benson, M.D., in 1968 or 
so when looking at the physiological data he was getting from TM 
(Transcendental Meditation) meditators who were coming to his lab to be 
measured.

 


 Benson soon got tired of our relentless TM zealotry and the way we (TM 
teachers who were working for him) would sign official research documents with 
"Jai Guru Dev." As TM teachers, we wanted to take the results from his lab and 
instantly use them as part of our advertising and our public lectures. TM at 
the time had meditation centers in every major city in the United States, and 
teachers on most every college campus across the country. It was a hugely 
popular movement.

 


 But Benson needed to be able to "clone" TM, make it into a 
laboratory-standardized technique that could be replicated and measured at 
other labs. That's what science is. So he decided to de-mystify mantras, and he 
started telling people to just pick their own mantra, such as the word, "ONE." 
This scandalized the whole TM movement, but he had to do it. And truth be told, 
as far as I know, Benson in his 30 years or so of research on the physiology of 
meditation, publishing hundreds of scientific papers, is probably the greatest 
meditation scientist ever. I trust his findings.

 


 In the late 1960's and early 1970's, TM meditators were the guinea pigs of 
choice for scientists, because there were hundreds of thousands of them in the 
United States alone, and tens of thousands in other countries, their training 
was standardized, and they were so well trained that they could come into a 
medical lab and actually MEDITATE while the scientists stuck needles in their 
arms, electrodes on their heads, hands and hearts, and breathe into 
oxygen-consumption measuring masks. It's hard to find people like that! Think 
about it. Who in their right mind would take out part of their day to do such a 
thing? When I used to do this, in the 70's, it meant driving through ugly 
traffic to UCI Medical School, then going into a lab with a thousand rats in 
cages just a couple dozen feet away, the smell of ether in the air, and letting 
the guys in white coats poke me with huge needles and take blood samples while 
I meditated.

 


 TM blew it, by alienating one of the great scientists at work in the field, 
and by pushing bad science — publishing in their ads the results of trial 
studies. But the Buddhists, by comparison, played it very smart, and gradually 
came to be the favorite of physiological researchers. The Buddhists cheerfully 
cooperated with the needs of scientists, it is a match made in heaven because 
Buddhism is a very clin

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife]]

The late Skip Alexander, who used to head the Psychology Dept at MUM, co-edited 
a book that examined post-maslow development. 

 He wrote the chapter on Vedic Psychology, and prominent  
mainstream-psychologists wrote chapters on post-Maslow, -post-Piagetian, etc., 
psychology.
 

 _Higher Stages of Human Development_ -Alexander and Langer, ed.
 

 May still be in print.
 
[You can't have my autographed copy, sorry]
 

 L
 

 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 When thinking about why people value certain experiences and do certain 
activities, I like Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a guideline. IOW, once 
certain basic needs are met, then a person seeks to satisfy additional needs. 
Which might not be higher but which might simply involve activating more of the 
brain. Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our brain 
that want to be activated? Or are we simply physical organisms seeking 
homeostatis all the time?
 

 Today is Mahalakshmi day. There's a big celebration in the Dome. I haven't 
decided whether I will go or not. Autumn has been so beautiful here. I feel 
happy enough just glancing up from the computer once and a while, out the 
window to the trees and the sky, walking to the post office, doing my everyday 
tasks.
 

 I guess what I'm saying is that I don't need to go to the Dome and hopefully 
get blessings from Mahalakshmi in the form of more money and then feel happier. 
I am already feeling happy enough. Much much gratitude...  

 
 


 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, "TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
 
 

   
 From: "Michael Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
   Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T valuable. I'm 
just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever stepped up to the 
plate and made an objective, scientific case for what that value might be. 

Most teachers or seekers just *assume* that these experiences they have or 
claim to have had are valuable, but when called upon to do so, they can't 
really produce any strong arguments for WHY they are valuable, or WHAT that 
supposed value is. I'm suggesting that this oversight is epidemic in the world 
of "spiritual practices," the elephant in the room that no one ever talks 
about. The people promoting these practices just *assume* that these 
experiences they're having or seeking are *worth* having or seeking, and debate 
the supposedly best ways of achieving them. But I don't know of very many who 
have taken that "step back," beyond the assumption, and have tried to make a 
case for WHY they're so intent on achieving these things. What is it that they 
hope to "achieve," and WHY would others want to do so?

Answers such as, "Well, I want to have these experiences because Jim Flanegin 
said that I would be a low-vibe slime until I had them the way he has" do not 
count.  :-)  :-)  :-)

It's the same problem I see with religion in general. The people urging others 
to join their religions don't seem to ever offer any real-world, 
payoff-in-this-lifetime reasons for doing so. They just *assume* that there is 
a payoff, and try to bluff their way through without ever specifying what it 
is. Millions and millions of seekers over the ages, and almost none of them 
have ever come up with a real *value* for all this seeking they're devoting 
their lives to. I'm NOT suggesting that there isn't one, just pointing out that 
no one ever seems to talk about it if there is. 

 

  
 


 

 From: "TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
   From: "Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 

 
From: "TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife]" 

   From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
   The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way 
to construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that 
does not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system.
 

 But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these "experiences 
of unboundedness." That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these types of experience hav

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Like you Share, I really did not pay attention to the selling points as I had 
had experiences prior to TM, I was just looking for an easy way to meditate, a 
natural consequence of being lazy.  

 The sell was there in the introductory and preparatory lectures and in 
available chart books supposedly showing benefits from the scientific side, but 
I ignored all that at the time. My first few meditations were really rotten, I 
almost quit right there. 
 

 But trying to sell TM to friends who are not really into this kind of thing 
proved more of a challenge. None of my friends ever learned, except for a 
couple, and they never finished the course. A few of my family learned, and 
they all quit too.
 

 I did discover that some of my friends who were teachers, when I criticised 
the quality of the scientific research on TM, would try really had to convince 
me the research was really true. About 1% of research on meditation in general 
is of good quality. Part of that seems to lie with the advertising mentality of 
the TMO.
 

 Dr. Lorin Roche wrote the following:
 

 The Relaxation Response is the term coined by Herbert Benson, M.D., in 1968 or 
so when looking at the physiological data he was getting from TM 
(Transcendental Meditation) meditators who were coming to his lab to be 
measured.

 


 Benson soon got tired of our relentless TM zealotry and the way we (TM 
teachers who were working for him) would sign official research documents with 
"Jai Guru Dev." As TM teachers, we wanted to take the results from his lab and 
instantly use them as part of our advertising and our public lectures. TM at 
the time had meditation centers in every major city in the United States, and 
teachers on most every college campus across the country. It was a hugely 
popular movement.

 


 But Benson needed to be able to "clone" TM, make it into a 
laboratory-standardized technique that could be replicated and measured at 
other labs. That's what science is. So he decided to de-mystify mantras, and he 
started telling people to just pick their own mantra, such as the word, "ONE." 
This scandalized the whole TM movement, but he had to do it. And truth be told, 
as far as I know, Benson in his 30 years or so of research on the physiology of 
meditation, publishing hundreds of scientific papers, is probably the greatest 
meditation scientist ever. I trust his findings.

 


 In the late 1960's and early 1970's, TM meditators were the guinea pigs of 
choice for scientists, because there were hundreds of thousands of them in the 
United States alone, and tens of thousands in other countries, their training 
was standardized, and they were so well trained that they could come into a 
medical lab and actually MEDITATE while the scientists stuck needles in their 
arms, electrodes on their heads, hands and hearts, and breathe into 
oxygen-consumption measuring masks. It's hard to find people like that! Think 
about it. Who in their right mind would take out part of their day to do such a 
thing? When I used to do this, in the 70's, it meant driving through ugly 
traffic to UCI Medical School, then going into a lab with a thousand rats in 
cages just a couple dozen feet away, the smell of ether in the air, and letting 
the guys in white coats poke me with huge needles and take blood samples while 
I meditated.

 


 TM blew it, by alienating one of the great scientists at work in the field, 
and by pushing bad science — publishing in their ads the results of trial 
studies. But the Buddhists, by comparison, played it very smart, and gradually 
came to be the favorite of physiological researchers. The Buddhists cheerfully 
cooperated with the needs of scientists, it is a match made in heaven because 
Buddhism is a very clinical take on life anyway.

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 WRT TM, I never got a snow job or a hard sell. In 1972, I was student teaching 
in a non traditional high school. One of the other student teachers explained 
the bubble diagram to me. Also during this time, my husband and I were doing 
marijuana approx 3 times a year. I wished that I could have that high in a 
natural way. We also did a yoga class. I caught a cold.

 

 Now fast forward three years. I'm in Yes health food restaurant in DC. A 
gorgeous young man comes up to my table, doesn't say a word, and leaves a copy 
of Autobiography of a Yogi. I read the book over several months but don't 
understand most of it.
 

 A few months later I'm visiting my Mom. She comments that I seem so peaceful. 
I'm thinking about taking a Tai Chi class at Univ of Maryland, called The Art 
of Moving Meditation.
 

 One beautiful day in March 1975, I take my camera to Rock Creek Park. Along 
the way I stop at a grocery store. As I'm leaving, I see a picture of Maharishi 
for the first time. I don't know why, except for the word "meditation," but I 
note the time, date and place of the intro lecture.
 

 When I go to the lecture at my local public l

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

exercises, sit quietly, eat special foods, take weird medicines. Want to jump 
in an try this out? In order to get people to do what you like, you have to be 
more devious in your enticements.
It all comes down to 'I like this, and I want you to like it too'. Psst, I have 
some secret stuff that other people do not know, and if you let me tell you, 
and you do what I say, you will be able to say every day 'I'm gonna help 
people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like 
me!
   

   From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
   
    From: "Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

    From: "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 
  The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way 
to construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that 
does not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system.

But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these "experiences 
of unboundedness." That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these types of experience having a value in the 
first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of "The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness," which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these "experiences of 
unboundedness" you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a value, 
then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?

Systems already exist, but they are inefficient and quirky, and at best we just 
stumble into them. If the value to the individual is great enough, they will 
find a way. What was of value to me though, might not be of value to another.

I have found these experiences valuable...

HOW? I cannot help but notice that you have avoided my question. DEFINE this 
"value" that you have "found" in these "experiences of unboundedness." How 
*exactly* did they improve your life (or anyone else's life), in objective 
terms?

, but it has also been very interesting how they have ultimately played out for 
me. Sam Harris is also promoting those experiences in his new book Waking Up, a 
Guide to Spirituality without Religion. 

And, like you, without presenting a convincing reason WHY they might be 
valuable.  

These experiences can be fantastic, one can get attached to having them but as 
to how they can be interpreted is another question. What you are told in a 
particular tradition might not be a particularly good way to describe them if 
they tend to reinforce an impacted belief system. My view, at the moment, is 
the nervous system is relieving itself of something, but it is difficult to 
tell just what that something is. I would say the interesting spiritual 
experiences are just artefacts of the system normalising itself, so they are 
not really of real import. 

Then why "construct a system to give people these experiences?"

If one is seeking heaven and trying to avoid hell, one is missing the point of 
the search, for the point is to discover the commonality of both, and avoid 
being sucked either way. 

WHY is anyone seeking *either*? And where did you make the connection between 
these "experiences of unboundedness" and "heaven" or "hell?" 

For me as time went on such experiences tended to damp out, everything kind of 
flattened out, until one day on a walk there was this shift in which the world, 
as it always had been, was identical with what I had been seeking. 

I'm not sure you get my point. You, like Sam Harris, are talking about finding 
alternative -- theoretically better or more benign -- methods of "giving people 
these experiences of unboundedness." But it strikes me that neither of you have 
ever taken a step back and told us WHY you or anyone else really *wants* these 
experiences in the first place, and more important, what objective *value* 
these experiences bring to your life or to the lives of others. 

I *understand* what you're saying...I think. I'm just pointing out that you and 
Harris both seem to sound as if you're inside a herd of lemmings prese

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

That was a great read, thanks!
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I think you hit on something here I never considered. Social interaction. I do 
not think there is any objective measure by which one considers such 
experiences valuable. There are certain things I like, certain things I do not, 
and I go for the ones I like. While I do not know why, those things I like I 
sometimes like to share with others. A piece of music, a movie. Why did you 
post about Bruce Cockburn's music, his book? I am not sure there is any 
reliable objective measure why one likes something other than a general 
propensity to avoid pain and to maintain comfort. Now if you recall Maharishi 
said the mind seeks a greater field of happiness. Because he was hawking TM, he 
skewed the concept to correspond with his metaphysic (the transcendental field, 
the unified field). You do not need a field. Basically I think it comes down to 
you like stuff, and don't like other stuff. The rationalisations come later. If 
there is any objective evidence for that previous sentence it might be split 
brain experiments. When one side of the brain of people with this condition are 
asked to explain why the other side of the body did something, it makes up an 
explanation. 
 

 The whole spiritual trip is a post hoc explanation fabricated to explain why 
something you like, in this case some kind of meditation for example, or the 
experience that is supposed to result from that, should be valuable to someone 
else. Spiritual endeavours are really quite a complex bother, all these things 
that one has to practice or think about, so to get someone to get involved in 
it really requires a real snow job. You have to bury them with advertising 
about how great things will be if they do this. You need an intellectual 
framework to explain why doing such atypical things will benefit. To get 
someone to come around to your ideas about what you like, it may not matter if 
it doesn't really work. You make up this because you are socially wired to a 
certain extent, and a successful social interaction results in feeling good. So 
there really is not much of a reason for saying such experiences as spiritual 
experiences are valuable, you hawk them that way, just as you would a certain 
artist, a good restaurant, a walk on a nice evening. Because social 
interactions are on an individual level, I would say the ego is involved, that 
level of personal identity that thinks it is running the show. The ego provides 
the explanations. From a scientific level, the experiments that indicate the 
brain comes to decisions often as far as 7 or 8 seconds prior to that decision 
comes into conscious awareness. That would mean you are not really in control 
of anything. Life goes on this and that way. Stuff happens, you think you do 
stuff. Hawking TM or hawking Bruce or hawking Hawking resuls in satisfaction. 
Whatever floats your boat.
 

 As for experiences of unboundedness, I really don't think of them that way any 
more. The spiritual trip is the strangest con in the universe. Suppose I put it 
this way: How would you like to be exactly the way you are for as long as you 
are? This is what I am offering you. It will take you about 40 or 50 years, and 
you will have to do all these different things, adopt crazy ideas, do 
exercises, sit quietly, eat special foods, take weird medicines. Want to jump 
in an try this out? In order to get people to do what you like, you have to be 
more devious in your enticements.
 

 It all comes down to 'I like this, and I want you to like it too'. Psst, I 
have some secret stuff that other people do not know, and if you let me tell 
you, and you do what I say, you will be able to say every day 'I'm gonna help 
people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like 
me!
 

 


 From: "TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
   From: "Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 

 
From: "TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife]" 

   From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
   The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way 
to construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that 
does not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system.
 

 But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these "experiences 
of unboundedness." That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these types of experience hav

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 10:36 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

>

Two travelers are on a road, looking for Ixtlan.
They ask a passing bird for directions.
He gives them, then flies off.
Do the travelers go in the direction he pointed them to, or not?
Whatever their choice, do they ever get to Ixtlan?
However long their journey, did they ever leave it?

>
/This little story by Carlos Castaneda is almost straight out of South 
Asian mythology. Apparently Castaneda got almost all of his inspiration 
from reading books in the UCLA library. This is supposed to be Yaqui 
philosophy - but everyone knows that the native American inhabitants all 
migrated over from Asia. So it's not surprising to see ancient Siberian 
shamanic notions in Yaqui mythology. //

//
/*/Buddha's Parable of the Raft:/*/
//
//Without a ferry or a bridge you can safely cross over a river on a raft.//
//The purpose of the raft is to cross over to the other side.
If you don't have a raft you can build one and use it to cross over.
Once you have crossed over, you can discard the raft.
You would look funny walking around with a raft on your head."//
//
/*/Zen Koan the Gateless Gate:/*/
//
//There is a long, winding spiritual path to get to the gate.
You must pass through the gate in order to get to the other side.
Once you pass through, you find that  there is no path, no going, no 
gate, and no other side.

So, we call it the "gateless" gate.

//http://www.spiritualliving360.com/index.php/zen-koan-case-of-carrying-the-raft-3065//

/http://www.dailyzen.com/zen/zen_reading12.asp/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: "Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
I think you hit on something here I never considered. Social interaction. I do 
not think there is any objective measure by which one considers such 
experiences valuable. There are certain things I like, certain things I do not, 
and I go for the ones I like. While I do not know why, those things I like I 
sometimes like to share with others. A piece of music, a movie. Why did you 
post about Bruce Cockburn's music, his book? I am not sure there is any 
reliable objective measure why one likes something other than a general 
propensity to avoid pain and to maintain comfort. Now if you recall Maharishi 
said the mind seeks a greater field of happiness. Because he was hawking TM, he 
skewed the concept to correspond with his metaphysic (the transcendental field, 
the unified field). You do not need a field. Basically I think it comes down to 
you like stuff, and don't like other stuff. The rationalisations come later. If 
there is any objective evidence for that
 previous sentence it might be split brain experiments. When one side of the 
brain of people with this condition are asked to explain why the other side of 
the body did something, it makes up an explanation. 

The whole spiritual trip is a post hoc explanation fabricated to explain why 
something you like, in this case some kind of meditation for example, or the 
experience that is supposed to result from that, should be valuable to someone 
else. Spiritual endeavours are really quite a complex bother, all these things 
that one has to practice or think about, so to get someone to get involved in 
it really requires a real snow job. You have to bury them with advertising 
about how great things will be if they do this. You need an intellectual 
framework to explain why doing such atypical things will benefit. To get 
someone to come around to your ideas about what you like, it may not matter if 
it doesn't really work. You make up this because you are socially wired to a 
certain extent, and a successful social interaction results in feeling good. So 
there really is not much of a reason for saying such experiences as spiritual 
experiences are valuable, you hawk them
 that way, just as you would a certain artist, a good restaurant, a walk on a 
nice evening. Because social interactions are on an individual level, I would 
say the ego is involved, that level of personal identity that thinks it is 
running the show. The ego provides the explanations. From a scientific level, 
the experiments that indicate the brain comes to decisions often as far as 7 or 
8 seconds prior to that decision comes into conscious awareness. That would 
mean you are not really in control of anything. Life goes on this and that way. 
Stuff happens, you think you do stuff. Hawking TM or hawking Bruce or hawking 
Hawking resuls in satisfaction. Whatever floats your boat.

As for experiences of unboundedness, I really don't think of them that way any 
more. The spiritual trip is the strangest con in the universe. Suppose I put it 
this way: How would you like to be exactly the way you are for as long as you 
are? This is what I am offering you. It will take you about 40 or 50 years, and 
you will have to do all these different things, adopt crazy ideas, do 
exercises, sit quietly, eat special foods, take weird medicines. Want to jump 
in an try this out? In order to get people to do what you like, you have to be 
more devious in your enticements.

It all comes down to 'I like this, and I want you to like it too'. Psst, I have 
some secret stuff that other people do not know, and if you let me tell you, 
and you do what I say, you will be able to say every day 'I'm gonna help 
people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like 
me!




Two travelers are on a road, looking for Ixtlan. 
They ask a passing bird for directions. 
He gives them, then flies off.
Do the travelers go in the direction he pointed them to, or not? 
Whatever their choice, do they ever get to Ixtlan? 
However long their journey, did they ever leave it?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Richard, is he saying something similar to: the Self alone unfolds the Self to 
the Self? That's what it sounds like to me. I think the whole thing is a big, 
fat paradox!
 

 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:17 AM, "'Richard J. Williams' 
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
   

  On 10/23/2014 9:29 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
 >
  
     Richard, your posts remind me of how much I appreciate David Deida and 
other teachers who suggest that the "old" ways of liberation are best suited to 
masculine physiologies. 
  He also compares a soul to the light coming in from a stained glass window, 
which is the body. Via yoga practices we attempt to clean the dirt off the 
window. Via therapy we attempt to fix the cracks in the glass. 
  
  But at a certain point, we realize we are the light. End of cleaning and 
fixing!

 >
 It's like the Zen koan: Polishing a Tile to Make a Mirror:
 
 There was a zen student named Tai-i who was always sitting in meditation. His 
master Matsu asked him: "For what purpose are you sitting in meditation?"
 
 The student answered: "I am trying to become a Buddha."
 
 So, the Zen Master picked up a tile and started rubbing it.
 
 The student asked: "For what purpose are you rubbing a tile?"
 
 The Zen Master replied "I am rubbing this tile to make a mirror."
 
 The student asked: "How can you rub a tile to make a mirror?"
 
 To which the Zen Master answered: "How can you make a Buddha by sitting and 
meditating?"
 
 Zen Buddhism: A History Volume 1
 by Heinrich Dumoulin
 MacMillan, 1994
  pp. 160-163
 
 http://www.absolutoracle.com/Notezen/Articles/koan1.htm
 
 
 
  
 
   On Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:11 AM, "'Richard J. Williams' 
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
   
 
   On 10/23/2014 7:14 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
  
 Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our brain that  
want to be activated? 
  
 >
 According to MMY it is the nature of the mind to want to enjoy - it's only 
natural for anyone  to want to be free from suffering. He said that "the way 
into bliss is the way out of suffering."
 
 So, nobody wants to suffer but in fact, suffering is a given in life: we all 
suffer from repeated  birth, old age, sickness and eventual death. The truth is 
that we are all bound by karma, either from this life or from a previous life. 
There is no exception to karma, from  the highest god or deva down to a single 
blade of grass.  
 
 The idea behind yoga is to provide the ideal opportunity for awakening to the 
truth of how things  really are. If you know the truth you will be free. Yoga 
is immortality and freedom. 
 
 According to yoga theory, you build up samskaras due to karma - the actions in 
this life and in your  past lives. You can remove the samskaras through tapas - 
"burning off" the accumulated layers of past actions through meditation and 
other yoga practices. But a practice will  not remove all the samskaras - even 
for an accomplished "yogi" there's always a trace of karma because they still 
maintain a human body with air, water, and food, coarse or  fine, and thoughts, 
volitions and desires. 
 
 A "siddha" yogi is one who has realized the truth and is totally free while 
still in living in a  human body, a "jivan-mukti" - for them there is no 
return; everything has been done that needs to be done; gone to the other 
shore; totally gone. No come back no more. Free.
 >
 
  
 
   On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, "TurquoiseBee 
turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
   
 
     From: "Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
 Sent: Thursday, October 23,  2014 12:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife]  Re: Belief in God is a form of mental  illness
   
     Well said Barry - and I agree with every word
 
 It's NOT that I'm saying  that seeking spiritual experiences  ISN'T valuable. 
I'm  just pointing out that almost no one  in history has ever stepped up to 
the plate and made an objective,  scientific case for what that value might be.
 
 
 
 

 
  #yiv7549385388 #yiv7549385388 -- #yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv7549385388 
#yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv7549385388 
#yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp #yiv7549385388hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv7549385388 #yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp #yiv7549385388ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv7549385388 #yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp .yiv7549385388ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv7549385388 #yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp .yiv75

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 9:29 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

>
Richard, your posts remind me of how much I appreciate David Deida and 
other teachers who suggest that the "old" ways of liberation are best 
suited to masculine physiologies.


He also compares a soul to the light coming in from a stained glass 
window, which is the body. Via yoga practices we attempt to clean the 
dirt off the window. Via therapy we attempt to fix the cracks in the 
glass.


But at a certain point, we realize we are the light. End of cleaning 
and fixing!

>
It's like the Zen koan: Polishing a Tile to Make a Mirror:

/There was a zen student named Tai-i who was always sitting in 
meditation. His master Matsu asked him: "For what purpose are you 
sitting in meditation?"//

//
//The student answered: "I am trying to become a Buddha."//
//
//So, the Zen Master picked up a tile and started rubbing it.//
//
//The student asked: "For what purpose are you rubbing a tile?"//
//
//The Zen Master replied "I am rubbing this tile to make a mirror."//
//
//The student asked: "How can you rub a tile to make a mirror?"//
//
//To which the Zen Master answered: "How can you make a Buddha by 
sitting and meditating?"/


Zen Buddhism: A History Volume 1
by Heinrich Dumoulin
MacMillan, 1994
 pp. 160-163

http://www.absolutoracle.com/Notezen/Articles/koan1.htm





On Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:11 AM, "'Richard J. Williams' 
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]"  
wrote:



On 10/23/2014 7:14 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com 
<mailto:sharelon...@yahoo.com> [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our 
brain that want to be activated?

>
/According to MMY it is the nature of the mind to want to enjoy - it's 
only natural for anyone to want to be free from suffering. He said 
that "the way into bliss is the way out of suffering."//

//
//So, nobody wants to suffer but in fact, suffering is a given in 
life: we all suffer from repeated birth, old age, sickness and 
eventual death. The truth is that we are all bound by karma, either 
from this life or from a previous life. There is no exception to 
karma, from the highest god or deva down to a single blade of grass. //

//
//The idea behind yoga is to provide the ideal opportunity for 
awakening to the truth of how things really are. If you know the truth 
you will be free. Yoga is immortality and freedom. //

//
//According to yoga theory, you build up samskaras due to karma - the 
actions in this life and in your past lives. You can remove the 
samskaras through tapas - "burning off" the accumulated layers of past 
actions through meditation and other yoga practices. But a practice 
will not remove all the samskaras - even for an accomplished "yogi" 
there's always a trace of karma because they still maintain a human 
body with air, water, and food, coarse or fine, and thoughts, 
volitions and desires. //

//
//A "siddha" yogi is one who has realized the truth and is totally 
free while still in living in a human body, a "jivan-mukti" - for them 
there is no return; everything has been done that needs to be done; 
gone to the other shore; totally gone. No come back no more.//Free./

>



On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, "TurquoiseBee 
turquoi...@yahoo.com <mailto:turquoi...@yahoo.com> [FairfieldLife]" 
 
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



*From:* "Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com 
<mailto:mjackso...@yahoo.com> [FairfieldLife]" 
 <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" 
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
 <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>

*Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental 
illness


Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T 
valuable. I'm just pointing out that almost no one in history has 
ever stepped up to the plate and made an objective, scientific case 
for what that value might be.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I think you hit on something here I never considered. Social interaction. I do 
not think there is any objective measure by which one considers such 
experiences valuable. There are certain things I like, certain things I do not, 
and I go for the ones I like. While I do not know why, those things I like I 
sometimes like to share with others. A piece of music, a movie. Why did you 
post about Bruce Cockburn's music, his book? I am not sure there is any 
reliable objective measure why one likes something other than a general 
propensity to avoid pain and to maintain comfort. Now if you recall Maharishi 
said the mind seeks a greater field of happiness. Because he was hawking TM, he 
skewed the concept to correspond with his metaphysic (the transcendental field, 
the unified field). You do not need a field. Basically I think it comes down to 
you like stuff, and don't like other stuff. The rationalisations come later. If 
there is any objective evidence for that
 previous sentence it might be split brain experiments. When one side of the 
brain of people with this condition are asked to explain why the other side of 
the body did something, it makes up an explanation. 

The whole spiritual trip is a post hoc explanation fabricated to explain why 
something you like, in this case some kind of meditation for example, or the 
experience that is supposed to result from that, should be valuable to someone 
else. Spiritual endeavours are really quite a complex bother, all these things 
that one has to practice or think about, so to get someone to get involved in 
it really requires a real snow job. You have to bury them with advertising 
about how great things will be if they do this. You need an intellectual 
framework to explain why doing such atypical things will benefit. To get 
someone to come around to your ideas about what you like, it may not matter if 
it doesn't really work. You make up this because you are socially wired to a 
certain extent, and a successful social interaction results in feeling good. So 
there really is not much of a reason for saying such experiences as spiritual 
experiences are valuable, you hawk them
 that way, just as you would a certain artist, a good restaurant, a walk on a 
nice evening. Because social interactions are on an individual level, I would 
say the ego is involved, that level of personal identity that thinks it is 
running the show. The ego provides the explanations. From a scientific level, 
the experiments that indicate the brain comes to decisions often as far as 7 or 
8 seconds prior to that decision comes into conscious awareness. That would 
mean you are not really in control of anything. Life goes on this and that way. 
Stuff happens, you think you do stuff. Hawking TM or hawking Bruce or hawking 
Hawking resuls in satisfaction. Whatever floats your boat.

As for experiences of unboundedness, I really don't think of them that way any 
more. The spiritual trip is the strangest con in the universe. Suppose I put it 
this way: How would you like to be exactly the way you are for as long as you 
are? This is what I am offering you. It will take you about 40 or 50 years, and 
you will have to do all these different things, adopt crazy ideas, do 
exercises, sit quietly, eat special foods, take weird medicines. Want to jump 
in an try this out? In order to get people to do what you like, you have to be 
more devious in your enticements.

It all comes down to 'I like this, and I want you to like it too'. Psst, I have 
some secret stuff that other people do not know, and if you let me tell you, 
and you do what I say, you will be able to say every day 'I'm gonna help 
people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like 
me!






 From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
From: "Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 



From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


 
From: "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

  
The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous system.


But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these "experiences 
of unboundedness." That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system,
 make a case for these
 types of experience having a value in the
 first place. Most re

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Richard, I also appreciate Maharishi's distinction between and enlightened 
person and an enlightened teacher. The person maybe popped into enlightenment 
while eating a strawberry. So then he or she teaches the strawberry eating 
technique. 

OTOH, an enlightened teacher has such a perspective that he or she can see 
exactly where you are in your journey. And can genuinely help you along your 
path.
 

 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:25 AM, "'Richard J. Williams' 
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
   

  On 10/23/2014 9:02 AM, inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
 >
  
You are very good at quoting scripture and contents of text books (and there is 
a value to that), but when you look to the honesty of your moment to moment 
experience - What do you find?
 >
 Teachers and textbooks are like fingers pointing at the moon - they are valid 
means of knowledge - we all depend on verbal testimony for most of our 
understanding. SBS compared enlightenment to "Light" (Brahman). The Absolute is 
already there; it doesn't require anything else to illuminate it because it is 
an already established fact. The enlightened state is described in the Indian 
rice analogy: you can remove the chaff and it's still rice paddy. All you have 
to do is isolate the relative from the absolute and be free. Just don't fall 
into the false belief that the pointing finger is the moon itself.
 >
 
   Put aside traditions and ancient wisdom - they are not relevant today
 >
 In this day and age hardly anyone reads or understands the Sanskrit 
scriptures. The only hope for enlightenment in this age of Kali is to practice 
karma yoga - giving up the fruits of your labor for the common good and seeking 
out a qualified teacher so you can work out your karma with diligence. 
 >
 
  What are you bringing to the table?
 
 >
 "As in a pond, when its influx of water has been blocked, dries up gradually 
through evaporation and use, so karmic matter, which has been acquired through 
millions of lives, is erased through yoga; there is no further unflux" - Wallah 
Sutra, I.4
 
  #yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065 -- #yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2625676065 
#yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv2625676065 
#yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp #yiv2625676065hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp #yiv2625676065ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp .yiv2625676065ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp .yiv2625676065ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp .yiv2625676065ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv2625676065ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv2625676065 
#yiv2625676065ygrp-sponsor #yiv2625676065ygrp-lc #yiv2625676065hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv2625676065 
#yiv2625676065ygrp-sponsor #yiv2625676065ygrp-lc .yiv2625676065ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv2625676065 
#yiv2625676065activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv2625676065
 #yiv2625676065activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv2625676065 
#yiv2625676065activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065activity span 
.yiv2625676065underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2625676065 
.yiv2625676065attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 
0;width:400px;}#yiv2625676065 .yiv2625676065attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 .yiv2625676065attach img 
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv2625676065 .yiv2625676065attach label 
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv2625676065 .yiv2625676065attach label a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 
4px;}#yiv2625676065 .yiv2625676065bold 
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv2625676065 
.yiv2625676065bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 dd.yiv2625676065last 
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv2625676065 dd.yiv2625676065last p 
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv2625676065 
dd.yiv2625676065last p span.yiv2625676065yshortcuts 
{margin-right:0;}#yiv2625676065 div.yiv2625676065attach-table div div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 div.yiv2625676065attach-table 
{width:400px;}#yiv2625676065 div.yiv2625676065file-title a, #yiv2625676065 
div.yiv2625676065file-title a:active, #yiv2625676065 
div.yiv2625676065file-title a:hover, #yiv2625676065 div.yiv2625676065file-title 
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 div.yiv2625676065photo-title a, 
#yiv2625676

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Richard, your posts remind me of how much I appreciate David Deida and other 
teachers who suggest that the "old" ways of liberation are best suited to 
masculine physiologies.
He also compares a soul to the light coming in from a stained glass window, 
which is the body. Via yoga practices we attempt to clean the dirt off the 
window. Via therapy we attempt to fix the cracks in the glass. 

But at a certain point, we realize we are the light. End of cleaning and fixing!
 

 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:11 AM, "'Richard J. Williams' 
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
   

  On 10/23/2014 7:14 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
  
 Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our brain that 
want to be activated? 
  
 >
 According to MMY it is the nature of the mind to want to enjoy - it's only 
natural for anyone to want to be free from suffering. He said that "the way 
into bliss is the way out of suffering."
 
 So, nobody wants to suffer but in fact, suffering is a given in life: we all 
suffer from repeated birth, old age, sickness and eventual death. The truth is 
that we are all bound by karma, either from this life or from a previous life. 
There is no exception to karma, from the highest god or deva down to a single 
blade of grass.  
 
 The idea behind yoga is to provide the ideal opportunity for awakening to the 
truth of how things really are. If you know the truth you will be free. Yoga is 
immortality and freedom. 
 
 According to yoga theory, you build up samskaras due to karma - the actions in 
this life and in your past lives. You can remove the samskaras through tapas - 
"burning off" the accumulated layers of past actions through meditation and 
other yoga practices. But a practice will not remove all the samskaras - even 
for an accomplished "yogi" there's always a trace of karma because they still 
maintain a human body with air, water, and food, coarse or fine, and thoughts, 
volitions and desires. 
 
 A "siddha" yogi is one who has realized the truth and is totally free while 
still in living in a human body, a "jivan-mukti" - for them there is no return; 
everything has been done that needs to be done; gone to the other shore; 
totally gone. No come back no more. Free.
 >
 
  
 
   On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, "TurquoiseBee 
turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
   
 
 From: "Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
   
     Well said Barry - and I agree with every word
 
 It's NOT that I'm saying  that seeking spiritual experiences  ISN'T valuable. 
I'm  just pointing out that almost no one  in history has ever stepped up to 
the plate and made an objective,  scientific case for what that value might be.
 
 
  #yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133 -- #yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv6444222133 
#yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv6444222133 
#yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp #yiv6444222133hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp #yiv6444222133ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp .yiv6444222133ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp .yiv6444222133ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp .yiv6444222133ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv6444222133ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv6444222133 
#yiv6444222133ygrp-sponsor #yiv6444222133ygrp-lc #yiv6444222133hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv6444222133 
#yiv6444222133ygrp-sponsor #yiv6444222133ygrp-lc .yiv6444222133ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv6444222133 
#yiv6444222133activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv6444222133
 #yiv6444222133activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv6444222133 
#yiv6444222133activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133activity span 
.yiv6444222133underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6444222133 
.yiv6444222133attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 
0;width:400px;}#yiv6444222133 .yiv6444222133attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv6444222133 .yiv6444222133attach img 
{border:none;padding-rig

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 9:02 AM, inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>
You are very good at quoting scripture and contents of text books (and 
there is a value to that), but when you look to the honesty of your 
moment to moment experience - What do you find?

>
/Teachers and textbooks are like fingers pointing at the moon - they are 
valid means of knowledge - we all depend on verbal testimony for most of 
our understanding. SBS compared enlightenment to "Light" (Brahman). The 
Absolute is already there; it doesn't require anything else to 
illuminate it because it is an already established fact. The enlightened 
state is described in the Indian rice analogy: you can remove the chaff 
and it's still rice paddy. All you have to do is isolate the relative 
from the absolute and be free. Just don't fall into the false belief 
that the pointing finger is the moon itself./

>

Put aside traditions and ancient wisdom - they are not relevant today

>
/In this day and age hardly anyone reads or understands the Sanskrit 
scriptures. The only hope for enlightenment in this age of Kali is to 
practice karma yoga - giving up the fruits of your labor for the common 
good and seeking out a qualified teacher so you can work out your karma 
with diligence. /

>

What are you bringing to the table?

>
/"As in a pond, when its influx of water has been blocked, dries up 
gradually through evaporation and use, so karmic matter, which has been 
acquired through millions of lives, is erased through yoga; there is no 
further unflux" - Wallah Sutra, I.4/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 7:14 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our 
brain that want to be activated?

>
/According to MMY it is the nature of the mind to want to enjoy - it's 
only natural for anyone to want to be free from suffering. He said that 
"the way into bliss is the way out of suffering."//

//
//So, nobody wants to suffer but in fact, suffering is a given in life: 
we all suffer from repeated birth, old age, sickness and eventual death. 
The truth is that we are all bound by karma, either from this life or 
from a previous life. There is no exception to karma, from the highest 
god or deva down to a single blade of grass. //

//
//The idea behind yoga is to provide the ideal opportunity for awakening 
to the truth of how things really are. If you know the truth you will be 
free. Yoga is immortality and freedom. //

//
//According to yoga theory, you build up samskaras due to karma - the 
actions in this life and in your past lives. You can remove the 
samskaras through tapas - "burning off" the accumulated layers of past 
actions through meditation and other yoga practices. But a practice will 
not remove all the samskaras - even for an accomplished "yogi" there's 
always a trace of karma because they still maintain a human body with 
air, water, and food, coarse or fine, and thoughts, volitions and 
desires. //

//
//A "siddha" yogi is one who has realized the truth and is totally free 
while still in living in a human body, a "jivan-mukti" - for them there 
is no return; everything has been done that needs to be done; gone to 
the other shore; totally gone. No come back no more.//Free./

>



On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, "TurquoiseBee 
turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"  
wrote:



*From:* "Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" 
*Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental 
illness


Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T 
valuable. I'm just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever 
stepped up to the plate and made an objective, scientific case for 
what that value might be.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

You are very good at quoting scripture and contents of text books (and there is 
a value to that), but when you look to the honesty of your moment to moment 
experience - What do you find?   Put aside traditions and ancient wisdom - they 
are not relevant today - today its What are you bringing to the table?   BTW, 
you don't have to tell us . . . 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

>
On 10/23/2014 5:59 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

>
It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T 
valuable. I'm just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever 
stepped up to the plate and made an objective, scientific case for 
what that value might be.

>
/The answer is simple: you should know the truth and the truth will set 
you free from ignorance. We are either free or we are bound. If free, 
there is no need for //yoga; if bound by what means can we free ourselves?//

//
//It looks like we are back to Buddhism 101. In over forty years of 
studying with teachers and practicing you still don't seem to fully 
understand what it is you have been //seeking. So, let's start from the 
very beginning: //Buddhism is a non-theistic religion of beliefs and 
practices largely based on the teachings attributed to Siddhartha 
Gautama, who is commonly known as the historical Buddha, "the awakened 
one", the "awakened one" Sam Harris was talking about in his recent 
book, "Waking Up". //

//
//According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha lived and taught in the 
eastern part of the Indian subcontinent sometime between the 6th and 4th 
centuries BCE. He is recognized by Buddhists as an "awakened" or 
enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end 
their suffering from - "karma (from Sanskrit: action, work) is the force 
that drives samsara—the cycle of suffering and rebirth for each being."//

//
//Works cited://
//
//"Buddhism" from Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition.//
//http://www.britannica.com///
//
//Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, p. 40/
<

Most teachers or seekers just *assume* that these experiences they 
have or claim to have had are valuable, but when called upon to do so, 
they can't really produce any strong arguments for WHY they are 
valuable, or WHAT that supposed value is. I'm suggesting that this 
oversight is epidemic in the world of "spiritual practices," the 
elephant in the room that no one ever talks about. The people 
promoting these practices just *assume* that these experiences they're 
having or seeking are *worth* having or seeking, and debate the 
supposedly best ways of achieving them. But I don't know of very many 
who have taken that "step back," beyond the assumption, and have tried 
to make a case for WHY they're so intent on achieving these things. 
What is it that they hope to "achieve," and WHY would others want to 
do so?

>
/Non sequitur. I already answered this question in a previous post./
>


Answers such as, "Well, I want to have these experiences because Jim 
Flanegin said that I would be a low-vibe slime until I had them the 
way he has" do not count.  :-)  :-)  :-)

>
/Non sequitur.
>
/


It's the same problem I see with religion in general. The people 
urging others to join their religions don't seem to ever offer any 
real-world, payoff-in-this-lifetime reasons for doing so. They just 
*assume* that there is a payoff, and try to bluff their way through 
without ever specifying what it is. Millions and millions of seekers 
over the ages, and almost none of them have ever come up with a real 
*value* for all this seeking they're devoting their lives to. I'm NOT 
suggesting that there isn't one, just pointing out that no one ever 
seems to talk about it if there is. 

>
/Non sequitur.//I already rebutted this statement in a previous post./

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 5:04 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

>
/You failed to answer Barry's main question: what is the value of the 
spiritual life?/

>



*From:* "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" 
*Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:33 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental 
illness


*From:* "Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


*
From:* "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

*From:* "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there 
a way to construct a system that gives us these experiences of 
unboundedness that does not also wreak havoc with this gullibility 
weakness in the human nervous system.


But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these 
"experiences of unboundedness." That has not been established, merely 
assumed by centuries of religious fanatics trying to convince others 
that its value trumps everything else.


I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to 
invent a better system, make a case for these types of experience 
having a value in the first place. Most religions have never tried to 
do this. They just make declarations like Maharishi did, along the 
lines of "The purpose of life is to achieve these experiences of 
unboundedness," which then become dogma and are repeated and believed 
by successive generations of believers. But he never said WHY these 
experiences were supposedly worth achieving.


Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these "experiences of 
unboundedness" you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a 
value, then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?


*Systems already exist, but they are inefficient and quirky, and at 
best we just stumble into them. If the value to the individual is 
great enough, they will find a way. What was of value to me though, 
might not be of value to another.

*
I have found these experiences valuable...

HOW? I cannot help but notice that you have avoided my question. 
DEFINE this "value" that you have "found" in these "experiences of 
unboundedness." How *exactly* did they improve your life (or anyone 
else's life), in objective terms?


, but it has also been very interesting how they have ultimately 
played out for me. Sam Harris is also promoting those experiences in 
his new book Waking Up, a Guide to Spirituality without Religion.


And, like you, without presenting a convincing reason WHY they might 
be valuable.


These experiences can be fantastic, one can get attached to having 
them but as to how they can be interpreted is another question. What 
you are told in a particular tradition might not be a particularly 
good way to describe them if they tend to reinforce an impacted belief 
system. My view, at the moment, is the nervous system is relieving 
itself of something, but it is difficult to tell just what that 
something is. I would say the interesting spiritual experiences are 
just artefacts of the system normalising itself, so they are not 
really of real import.


Then why "construct a system to give people these experiences?"

If one is seeking heaven and trying to avoid hell, one is missing the 
point of the search, for the point is to discover the commonality of 
both, and avoid being sucked either way.


WHY is anyone seeking *either*? And where did you make the connection 
between these "experiences of unboundedness" and "heaven" or "hell?"


For me as time went on such experiences tended to damp out, everything 
kind of flattened out, until one day on a walk there was this shift in 
which the world, as it always had been, was identical with what I had 
been seeking.

*
*I'm not sure you get my point. You, like Sam Harris, are talking 
about finding alternative -- theoretically better or more benign -- 
methods of "giving people these experiences of unboundedness." But it 
strikes me that neither of you have ever taken a step back and told us 
WHY you or anyone else really *wants* these experiences in the first 
place, and more important, what objective *value* these experiences 
bring to your life or to the lives of others.


I *understand* what you're saying...I think. I'm just pointing out 
that you and Harris both seem to sound as if you're inside a herd of 
lemmings presenting options for a new direction in which to run, 
without ever making a case for WHY you are running in the first place. :-)





*

*

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 3:33 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

**
For me as time went on such experiences tended to damp out, everything 
kind of flattened out, until one day on a walk there was this shift in 
which the world, as it always had been, was identical with what I had 
been seeking.

*
*I'm not sure you get my point. You, like Sam Harris, are talking 
about finding alternative -- theoretically better or more benign -- 
methods of "giving people these experiences of unboundedness." But it 
strikes me that neither of you have ever taken a step back and told us 
WHY you or anyone else really *wants* these experiences in the first 
place, and more important, what objective *value* these experiences 
bring to your life or to the lives of others.


I *understand* what you're saying...I think. I'm just pointing out 
that you and Harris both seem to sound as if you're inside a herd of 
lemmings presenting options for a new direction in which to run, 
without ever making a case for WHY you are running in the first place. :-)

>

/Maybe we should review//://
//
//The purpose of yoga, both Buddhist and Hindu, is to liberate man from 
suffering; so that they do not have to be reincarnated again and bound 
by karma. Everyone already knows this. Sam Harris already told you this 
- didn't you read his book?


'The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason'
by Sam Harris
W.W. Norton & Company, 2004
p. 214


///

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

When thinking about why people value certain experiences and do certain 
activities, I like Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a guideline. IOW, once 
certain basic needs are met, then a person seeks to satisfy additional needs. 
Which might not be higher but which might simply involve activating more of the 
brain. Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our brain 
that want to be activated? Or are we simply physical organisms seeking 
homeostatis all the time?
Today is Mahalakshmi day. There's a big celebration in the Dome. I haven't 
decided whether I will go or not. Autumn has been so beautiful here. I feel 
happy enough just glancing up from the computer once and a while, out the 
window to the trees and the sky, walking to the post office, doing my everyday 
tasks.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't need to go to the Dome and hopefully 
get blessings from Mahalakshmi in the form of more money and then feel happier. 
I am already feeling happy enough. Much much gratitude...  
 

 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
   

     From: "Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
   
    Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T valuable. I'm 
just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever stepped up to the 
plate and made an objective, scientific case for what that value might be. 

Most teachers or seekers just *assume* that these experiences they have or 
claim to have had are valuable, but when called upon to do so, they can't 
really produce any strong arguments for WHY they are valuable, or WHAT that 
supposed value is. I'm suggesting that this oversight is epidemic in the world 
of "spiritual practices," the elephant in the room that no one ever talks 
about. The people promoting these practices just *assume* that these 
experiences they're having or seeking are *worth* having or seeking, and debate 
the supposedly best ways of achieving them. But I don't know of very many who 
have taken that "step back," beyond the assumption, and have tried to make a 
case for WHY they're so intent on achieving these things. What is it that they 
hope to "achieve," and WHY would others want to do so?

Answers such as, "Well, I want to have these experiences because Jim Flanegin 
said that I would be a low-vibe slime until I had them the way he has" do not 
count.  :-)  :-)  :-)

It's the same problem I see with religion in general. The people urging others 
to join their religions don't seem to ever offer any real-world, 
payoff-in-this-lifetime reasons for doing so. They just *assume* that there is 
a payoff, and try to bluff their way through without ever specifying what it 
is. Millions and millions of seekers over the ages, and almost none of them 
have ever come up with a real *value* for all this seeking they're devoting 
their lives to. I'm NOT suggesting that there isn't one, just pointing out that 
no one ever seems to talk about it if there is. 


  

  From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
   
    From: "Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

    From: "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 
  The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way 
to construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that 
does not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system.

But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these "experiences 
of unboundedness." That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these types of experience having a value in the 
first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of "The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness," which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these "experie

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: "Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T valuable. I'm 
just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever stepped up to the 
plate and made an objective, scientific case for what that value might be. 

Most teachers or seekers just *assume* that these experiences they have or 
claim to have had are valuable, but when called upon to do so, they can't 
really produce any strong arguments for WHY they are valuable, or WHAT that 
supposed value is. I'm suggesting that this oversight is epidemic in the world 
of "spiritual practices," the elephant in the room that no one ever talks 
about. The people promoting these practices just *assume* that these 
experiences they're having or seeking are *worth* having or seeking, and debate 
the supposedly best ways of achieving them. But I don't know of very many who 
have taken that "step back," beyond the assumption, and have tried to make a 
case for WHY they're so intent on achieving these things. What is it that they 
hope to "achieve," and WHY would others want to do so?

Answers such as, "Well, I want to have these experiences because Jim Flanegin 
said that I would be a low-vibe slime until I had them the way he has" do not 
count.  :-)  :-)  :-)

It's the same problem I see with religion in general. The people urging others 
to join their religions don't seem to ever offer any real-world, 
payoff-in-this-lifetime reasons for doing so. They just *assume* that there is 
a payoff, and try to bluff their way through without ever specifying what it 
is. Millions and millions of seekers over the ages, and almost none of them 
have ever come up with a real *value* for all this seeking they're devoting 
their lives to. I'm NOT suggesting that there isn't one, just pointing out that 
no one ever seems to talk about it if there is. 



 




 From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
From: "Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 



From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


 
From: "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

  
The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous system.


But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these "experiences 
of unboundedness." That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system,
 make a case for these
 types of experience having a value in the
 first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of "The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness," which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these "experiences of 
unboundedness" you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a value, 
then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?


Systems already exist, but they are inefficient and quirky, and at best we just 
stumble into them. If the value to the individual is great enough, they will 
find a way. What was of value to me though, might not be of value to another.

I have found these experiences valuable...

HOW? I cannot help but notice that you have avoided my question. DEFINE this 
"value" that you have "found" in these "experiences of unboundedness." How 
*exactly* did they improve your life (or anyone else's life), in objective 
terms?

, but it has also been very interesting how they have ultimately played out for 
me. Sam Harris is also promoting those experiences in his new book Waking Up, a 
Guide to Spirituality without Religion. 

And, like you, without presenting a convincing reason WHY they might be 
valuable.  

These experiences can be fantastic, one can get attached to having them but as 
to how they can be interpreted is another question. What you are

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Well said Barry - and I agree with every word




 From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
From: "Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 



From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


 
From: "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

  
The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous system.


But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these "experiences 
of unboundedness." That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system,
 make a case for these
 types of experience having a value in the
 first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of "The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness," which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these "experiences of 
unboundedness" you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a value, 
then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?


Systems already exist, but they are inefficient and quirky, and at best we just 
stumble into them. If the value to the individual is great enough, they will 
find a way. What was of value to me though, might not be of value to another.

I have found these experiences valuable...

HOW? I cannot help but notice that you have avoided my question. DEFINE this 
"value" that you have "found" in these "experiences of unboundedness." How 
*exactly* did they improve your life (or anyone else's life), in objective 
terms?

, but it has also been very interesting how they have ultimately played out for 
me. Sam Harris is also promoting those experiences in his new book Waking Up, a 
Guide to Spirituality without Religion. 

And, like you, without presenting a convincing reason WHY they might be 
valuable.  

These experiences can be fantastic, one can get attached to having them but as 
to how they can be interpreted is another question. What you are told in a 
particular tradition might not be a particularly good way to describe them if 
they tend to reinforce an impacted belief system. My view, at the moment, is 
the nervous system is relieving itself of something, but it is difficult to 
tell just what that something is. I would say the interesting spiritual 
experiences are just artefacts of the system normalising itself, so they are 
not really of real import. 

Then why "construct a system to give people these experiences?"

If one is seeking heaven and trying to avoid hell, one is missing the point of 
the search, for the point is to discover the commonality of both, and avoid 
being sucked either way. 

WHY is anyone seeking *either*? And where did you make the connection between 
these "experiences of unboundedness" and "heaven" or "hell?" 

For me as time went on such experiences tended to damp out, everything kind of 
flattened out, until one day on a walk there was this shift in which the world, 
as it always had been, was identical with what I had been
 seeking. 


I'm not sure you get my point. You, like Sam Harris, are talking about finding 
alternative -- theoretically better or more benign -- methods of "giving people 
these experiences of unboundedness." But it strikes me that neither of you have 
ever taken a step back and told us WHY you or anyone else really *wants* these 
experiences in the first place, and more important, what objective *value* 
these experiences bring to your life or to the lives of others. 

I *understand* what you're saying...I think. I'm just pointing out that you and 
Harris both seem to sound as if you're inside a herd of lemmings presenting 
options for a new direction in which to run, without ever making a case for WHY 
you are running in the first place.  :-)







 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: "Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 



From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


 
From: "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

  
The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous system.


But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these "experiences 
of unboundedness." That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these
 types of experience having a value in the
 first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of "The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness," which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these "experiences of 
unboundedness" you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a value, 
then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?


Systems already exist, but they are inefficient and quirky, and at best we just 
stumble into them. If the value to the individual is great enough, they will 
find a way. What was of value to me though, might not be of value to another.

I have found these experiences valuable...

HOW? I cannot help but notice that you have avoided my question. DEFINE this 
"value" that you have "found" in these "experiences of unboundedness." How 
*exactly* did they improve your life (or anyone else's life), in objective 
terms?

, but it has also been very interesting how they have ultimately played out for 
me. Sam Harris is also promoting those experiences in his new book Waking Up, a 
Guide to Spirituality without Religion. 

And, like you, without presenting a convincing reason WHY they might be 
valuable.  

These experiences can be fantastic, one can get attached to having them but as 
to how they can be interpreted is another question. What you are told in a 
particular tradition might not be a particularly good way to describe them if 
they tend to reinforce an impacted belief system. My view, at the moment, is 
the nervous system is relieving itself of something, but it is difficult to 
tell just what that something is. I would say the interesting spiritual 
experiences are just artefacts of the system normalising itself, so they are 
not really of real import. 

Then why "construct a system to give people these experiences?"

If one is seeking heaven and trying to avoid hell, one is missing the point of 
the search, for the point is to discover the commonality of both, and avoid 
being sucked either way. 

WHY is anyone seeking *either*? And where did you make the connection between 
these "experiences of unboundedness" and "heaven" or "hell?" 

For me as time went on such experiences tended to damp out, everything kind of 
flattened out, until one day on a walk there was this shift in which the world, 
as it always had been, was identical with what I had been seeking. 


I'm not sure you get my point. You, like Sam Harris, are talking about finding 
alternative -- theoretically better or more benign -- methods of "giving people 
these experiences of unboundedness." But it strikes me that neither of you have 
ever taken a step back and told us WHY you or anyone else really *wants* these 
experiences in the first place, and more important, what objective *value* 
these experiences bring to your life or to the lives of others. 

I *understand* what you're saying...I think. I'm just pointing out that you and 
Harris both seem to sound as if you're inside a herd of lemmings presenting 
options for a new direction in which to run, without ever making a case for WHY 
you are running in the first place.  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
From: "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
The human species lack of hard wiring makes us more flexible for learning; we 
do not go out and dig burrows and look for nuts in the forest everyday 
(usually), but it makes us susceptible to the mental equivalent of a viral 
attack. We here have all experienced the attack, and many here are still 
dancing to the virus's tune. This is why I called religion a memetic malady or 
disease. That is different from organic insanity. Religion is induced insanity. 

I can live with that. But I don't see any difference in the end state that the 
"induced insanity" of religion creates and the end state that "organic 
insanity" creates. Either way, one is insane. Maybe it's a Buddhist 
thing...Buddhists aren't really concerned
 about HOW things got to be the way they are, only THAT they are the way they 
are, and how to make the best of that. 

If you do not mind being surrounded by insane people I suppose that is OK. If 
you (or someone else probably) want to make a diagnosis and want to cure people 
of the malady, then a proper diagnosis is necessary as organic insanity and 
intractable, impacted belief systems would have a different treatment. Organic 
insanity may not be curable but certain forms might be ameliorated by drugs. 
With memetic insanity, you basically have to dismantle the patient's belief 
system while at the same time instilling a framework for rational thought. As 
we see here on FFL, this process does not work on the web, something more 
visceral is required, an environment where the beliefs and botched reasoning 
simply do not work at all and provide negative consequences if pursued. If that 
sounds suspiciously like brainwashing, it probably is, brainwashing to remove 
brainwashing.

The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous system.


But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these "experiences 
of unboundedness." That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these types of experience having a value in the
 first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of "The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness," which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these "experiences of 
unboundedness" you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a value, 
then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?


Systems already exist, but they are inefficient and quirky, and at best we just 
stumble into them. If the value to the individual is great enough, they will 
find a way. What was of value to me though, might not be of value to another.

I have found these experiences valuable, but it has also been very interesting 
how they have ultimately played out for me. Sam Harris is also promoting those 
experiences in his new book Waking Up, a Guide to Spirituality without 
Religion. These experiences can be fantastic, one can get attached to having 
them but as to how they can be interpreted is another question. What you are 
told in a particular tradition might not be a particularly good way to describe 
them if they tend to reinforce an impacted belief system. My view, at the 
moment, is the nervous system is relieving itself of something, but it is 
difficult to tell just what that something is. I would say the interesting 
spiritual experiences are just artefacts of the system normalising itself, so 
they are not really of real import. If one is seeking heaven and trying to 
avoid hell, one is missing the point of the search, for the point is to 
discover the commonality of both, and avoid being sucked
 either way. For me as time went on such experiences tended to damp out, 
everything kind of flattened out, until one day on a walk there was this shift 
in which the world, as it always had been, was identical with what I had been 
seekin

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Just to be clear, at no time have I said I was in the highest state of human 
development. The way I learned it, according to Maharishi, was that 
enlightenment meant simply, normal, and everything continues from there, as it 
always has. Draw your own conclusions. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I have no problem with your friendship with Ann - As she responded, she 
suspects some of what I said is accurate,

M: That would require her to believe that you know my feelings when reading 
posts or whether or not I even read posts between other people here. It would 
be equally bogus for her as it is for you who made this absurd claim. I was a 
bit disappointed when I read that.

 J: but doesn't let that deter a friendship with you. I don't play the chimp's 
games, and you, like the chimp, seem to have a difficult time reconciling, one 
the one hand, denying that I am enlightened, while finding enlightenment a 
bogus concept, to begin with. A Big Confusing Issue with you two. I recommend 
TM for both of you for awhile, say 50 years?? Better get started... :-)

M: Nothing confusing about those two things at all Jim. The more you insist you 
are in the highest state of human development the more glaring the contrast 
with what  and how you post here.   




 

  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote : 
 I'm sure Ann appreciates your straightening her out about me Jim. She was 
making the mistake of trusting her own impression, but now has the enlightened 
perspective from you on my dark motives and inner thoughts.

At first I wondered how you could know about my inner feelings or whether or 
not I even read posts between other posters, but then I remembered: Jim is in a 
superior state of mind and it made more sense. I was amazed that you nailed me 
on "exploiting" Barry's posts although I am still a bit unclear how this 
actually plays out in the, outside of Jim's enlightened head, world.

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about my dark motives, because for a 
second, I read your whole intention as acting out a kindergarten sandbox 
emotional level scene:"NO, Ann is MY friend".
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into lin

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I have no problem with your friendship with Ann - As she responded, she 
suspects some of what I said is accurate,

M: That would require her to believe that you know my feelings when reading 
posts or whether or not I even read posts between other people here. It would 
be equally bogus for her as it is for you who made this absurd claim. I was a 
bit disappointed when I read that.

 J: but doesn't let that deter a friendship with you. I don't play the chimp's 
games, and you, like the chimp, seem to have a difficult time reconciling, one 
the one hand, denying that I am enlightened, while finding enlightenment a 
bogus concept, to begin with. A Big Confusing Issue with you two. I recommend 
TM for both of you for awhile, say 50 years?? Better get started... :-)

M: Nothing confusing about those two things at all Jim. The more you insist you 
are in the highest state of human development the more glaring the contrast 
with what  and how you post here.   




 

  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote : 
 I'm sure Ann appreciates your straightening her out about me Jim. She was 
making the mistake of trusting her own impression, but now has the enlightened 
perspective from you on my dark motives and inner thoughts.

At first I wondered how you could know about my inner feelings or whether or 
not I even read posts between other posters, but then I remembered: Jim is in a 
superior state of mind and it made more sense. I was amazed that you nailed me 
on "exploiting" Barry's posts although I am still a bit unclear how this 
actually plays out in the, outside of Jim's enlightened head, world.

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about my dark motives, because for a 
second, I read your whole intention as acting out a kindergarten sandbox 
emotional level scene:"NO, Ann is MY friend".
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never 
participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff o

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I have no problem with your friendship with Ann - As she responded, she 
suspects some of what I said is accurate, but doesn't let that deter a 
friendship with you. I don't play the chimp's games, and you, like the chimp, 
seem to have a difficult time reconciling, one the one hand, denying that I am 
enlightened, while finding enlightenment a bogus concept, to begin with. A Big 
Confusing Issue with you two. I recommend TM for both of you for awhile, say 50 
years?? Better get started... :-) 

  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote : 
 I'm sure Ann appreciates your straightening her out about me Jim. She was 
making the mistake of trusting her own impression, but now has the enlightened 
perspective from you on my dark motives and inner thoughts.

At first I wondered how you could know about my inner feelings or whether or 
not I even read posts between other posters, but then I remembered: Jim is in a 
superior state of mind and it made more sense. I was amazed that you nailed me 
on "exploiting" Barry's posts although I am still a bit unclear how this 
actually plays out in the, outside of Jim's enlightened head, world.

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about my dark motives, because for a 
second, I read your whole intention as acting out a kindergarten sandbox 
emotional level scene:"NO, Ann is MY friend".
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never 
participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that 
while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I 
am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some 
reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or 
they simply create something they wished  they were. I don't know and I don't 
care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can 
push ourselves as a sort of exercise in pressing personal limits. But whatever 
it is, some simply cross t

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Richard, it occurs to me that the only thing we can know for sure is that 
awareness exists. And that's because we're aware. But maybe I'm over 
simplifying (-:
 

 On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:02 PM, "'Richard J. Williams' 
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
   

  On 10/21/2014 12:07 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
  
     Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a 
little more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris  (-:

 >
 According to Sam Harris consciousness is the only thing that cannot be an 
illusion.
 >
 
 Anyway, my questions are: 
  1. how do we know that we know?  
 >
 We know that we exist because we are self-conscious. Without consciousness 
there would be no perception or perceiver.
 >
 
 Which is kind of abstract and probably just me reliving a past life as a 
haetera!
  
 >
 Non sequitur. The fact of consciousness is dirt simple because everyone has 
it, otherwise they would be unconscious. Nobody that is conscious goes around 
saying they don't exist. "Consciousness is the basic fact of life that cannot 
be doubted."- Sam harris
 >
 
 2. what do we mean by knowing? 
 >
 Knowing is having knowledge structured in consciousness; intelligence. 
 >
 
 Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, 
perception could be faulty.
  
 >
 If appearances derived through one sensory channel appear contradictory, it is 
natural to appeal to other senses for corroboration. When they contradict, 
which sense shall we accept as reliable? If we observe the naive realist 
closely, we will find that at some times he relies principally on his eyes and, 
at other times, on his ears. When different senses corroborate an error, he 
even more baffled.
 >
 
 Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first 
love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the "truth" of the song.  
   
 >
 For past experiences, to be compared, they must be remembered. But memory 
often fails us. What assurance do we have that it is not failing us again? Past 
experiences may have been erroneous consistently. The materialist thinks he 
sees directly back into an existing past which in reality has ceased to exist!
 
 This is called in philosophy an appeal to instruments and like the appeal to 
other senses, to past experiences, to repetition, and to other persons, is a 
confession of failure. For it is a confession that apparently obvious objects 
are NOT self-evident.
 >
 
 But here's my really favorite question, 
  3. Back to your post: what is meant by "worthwhile reality"? 
 >
 It is worthwhile to be conscious because that way get to enjoy life and gain 
knowledge that will set us free. You should know the truth and the truth will 
set your free. There in knowledge higher than absolute knowledge.
 >
 
 Are there some realities that are not worthwhile?
  
 >
 There is only one single reality - pure consciousness - duality is an 
illusion. 
 >
 
 
 
   On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
   
 
 M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly 
thought provoking post. I too am an  amateur philosopher. But I am not sure 
philosophy is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to 
enhance the discussion of "how could we know?"
 
 Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:
 
 "Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material."
 
 M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble  matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some  humility about 
what is real.
 
 But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been  accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has  been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's find 
out."
 
 The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their  assumptio

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Hi, and thanks for that - Yeah, I just wanted to point out who is the hand, and 
who is the sock monkey, in that equation. Have a great day!
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

 You may very well be right Mac, because you tend to have a very insightful 
nature and I, more often than not, find your analyses extremely sophisticated. 
When I log on to FFL I always start at the bottom (oldest) post and read up 
answering certain posts as I go and moving past others. As I was quickly 
scrolling down from the top today I glimpsed some post from bawee who seems to 
address my personal post to Curtis. I haven't read it yet but I will, at least 
some of it. From the little I saw it appears rather unkind and very typical of 
bawee. Let's see what anyone does with this, if anything (although I see Steve 
made some remarks afterwards). I think you and Judy are on a similar page when 
it comes to Curtis but I don't always choose to deal with all the machinations 
that go on here so sometimes I simply find the parts of a person I enjoy or 
appreciate the most and speak to those. There are definite traits about Curtis 
that I admire (his music and his teaching) and as for whatever else might be 
going on I'm not in a position to try and change it. Whatever it is Curtis 
either sees or is using bawee for that is between them and is not somewhere I 
need to go.
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I'm sure Ann appreciates your straightening her out about me Jim. She was 
making the mistake of trusting her own impression, but now has the enlightened 
perspective from you on my dark motives and inner thoughts.

At first I wondered how you could know about my inner feelings or whether or 
not I even read posts between other posters, but then I remembered: Jim is in a 
superior state of mind and it made more sense. I was amazed that you nailed me 
on "exploiting" Barry's posts although I am still a bit unclear how this 
actually plays out in the, outside of Jim's enlightened head, world.

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about my dark motives, because for a 
second, I read your whole intention as acting out a kindergarten sandbox 
emotional level scene:"NO, Ann is MY friend".
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never 
participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that 
while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I 
am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some 
reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or 
they simply create something they wished  they were. I don't know and I don't 
care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can 
push ourselves as a sort of exercise in pressing personal limits. But whatever 
it is, some simply cross the bounds of decency (and I use that word in the old 
fashioned sense, decency being what is civil, sensitive and truthful). They 
commit a kind of trespass on the sensibilities of those who are effected by 
such things. They act like a sort of emotional jack hammer. It's simply not 
what I seek out in life where so much is beautiful and delicate and can enter 
your life as the subtlest whisper of revelation and even promise. Jack hammers 
are a dime a dozen.
 

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
The human species lack of hard wiring makes us more flexible for learning; we 
do not go out and dig burrows and look for nuts in the forest everyday 
(usually), but it makes us susceptible to the mental equivalent of a viral 
attack. We here have all experienced the attack, and many here are still 
dancing to the virus's tune. This is why I called religion a memetic malady or 
disease. That is different from organic insanity. Religion is induced insanity. 

I can live with that. But I don't see any difference in the end state that the 
"induced insanity" of religion creates and the end state that "organic 
insanity" creates. Either way, one is insane. Maybe it's a Buddhist 
thing...Buddhists aren't really concerned about HOW things got to be the way 
they are, only THAT they are the way they are, and how to make the best of 
that. 

The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system. 

But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these "experiences 
of unboundedness." That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these types of experience having a value in the 
first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of "The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness," which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these "experiences of 
unboundedness" you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a value, 
then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/22/2014 5:36 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

*From:* salyavin808 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

*From:* "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical 
wiring and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental 
illness is not considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the 
title Barry gave to this thread, the hook if you will, belief in god 
is not a mental illness.



Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is 
religion indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that 
the Inquisition considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable 
(the Inquisition lasted for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in 
ways that are still felt today).

>
/Non sequitur. Barry sounds very afraid of dialoging about religion or 
spiritual paths. He's been on the inside of two religious groups, but he 
doesn't seem to want to talk about it. He won't even tell us about the 
secret tantra techniques or the secret mantras. Go figure.


Apparently he is a TB: "True Believers tend to believe in absolutist 
terms (either l00% true or 100% false) and they can't tolerate 
situations in which://

//
// a. the truth is unknown//
// b. the truth is midway between extremes//
// c. simply unknowable//
// d. variants such as true some of the time, but at other times not 
true, or true for some people but not others."/

>


Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But 
let's not talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him 
into line day after day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has 
to do it so I sacrifice myself on the wheel of necessity. There will 
be some reward in heaven for my efforts, I am sure."


This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded 
with heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is 
their "duty" to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as 
if 1) she was entitled to, or 2) that ever happened.


See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here 
you have a person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and 
obsession on one particular person she hates by claiming it's her 
religious duty to act like this. This religious fanatic not only 
admits to being a stalker, she *celebrates* it and hopes to end up in 
heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say that was pretty mentally ill, 
wouldn't you? :-)  :-)  :-)



It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps?

I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one 
that applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!



Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers 
From Hell folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed 
to know for sure that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would 
indicate that they were in communication, right? So my bet is that 
Ann's "audience" is in fact the person who has been directing her 
stalking efforts from behind the scenes.


But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest 
that...uh...overestimating one's "audience" IS, in fact, a sign of 
mental illness. For example, several times now over the years I have 
asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all the issue of whether 
anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by simply 
ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly 
refused to do this, all while insinuating that he has "friends" here, 
as if the fact that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people 
he was told to stalk means that they actually believe his claim to be 
enlightened. Heck, even *Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is 
enlightened. Nabby probably thinks David Lynch and the occasional 
scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, but he doesn't think 
Jim is. Says a lot, right? :-)


The clear "sign of poor mental health" IMO is the fact that these 
people -- at this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- 
seem to feel that they have not only the right but a "duty" to harass 
and stalk those on this forum they don't like. I suggest that what 
they're really trying to do is SILENCE these people they stalk, 
because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged stalkers 
*pretend* that they're doing this stalking "for the good of the 
forum," or "to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what 
these liars might say," but of course we all know that the members of 
the original Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* 
were deranged stalkers.


I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and 
Steve's sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to 
what they write. I don't read their posts, s

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

who did you say was channeling Judy, sal?
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: salyavin808 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 
 Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers From 
Hell folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for 
sure that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they were 
in communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's "audience" is in fact the 
person who has been directing her stalking efforts from behind the scenes. 

She certainly seems to have taken over the role of principle Barry hater - and 
you have to admire the gusto! 

Indeed. Even *Judy* never admitted to having read my book as research material 
with which to better stalk me the way Ann has admitted to doing lately. Wasn't 
it Judy herself who once defined stalking as follows: "I might also point out 
that searching the Web for information to use against somebody is standard 
cyberstalking behavior." -- Judy Stein, FFL, 11 February 2013

 

 But I don't read any of it either, it's too easy to tell from message view 
what a post is going to be about with some people. Judy was considerate and 
always started a Barry post with "Note that Barry says" so we knew we could 
safely scroll past those. If Ann wants anyone to read anything that isn't 
"Bawee" related she should take up that technique or suffer the realisation one 
day that nobody real is reading what she obviously spends a lot of time typing.

I've really never understood those who feel that I or others might be "missing" 
important information by merely scanning the Message View of their posts and 
skipping the rest. One would really have to be a cretin to NOT know what one of 
these people were going to say in their posts from the first couple of lines of 
them. It's not, after all, as if they have that much *range* in the things they 
say. With Ann, one appearance of "bawee" is a guaranteed tipoff that she needed 
her Hate Fix for the day and that it's safe to skip the post in which she tried 
to shoot it up. 

 

 Sometimes you have to admit that you just don't like someone and let them get 
on with whatever it is they do. Continually going on about it is pointless.

And continuing to claim that she's not obsessing on me while *obviously* 
obsessing on me is not only pointless, but more than a little insane. 

 

 But I have similar feelings with TV, some people complain that most of it is 
crap but if it wasn't there'd be no time to do anything else! My glass is 
clearly half-full.
 
But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest that...uh...overestimating 
one's "audience" IS, in fact, a sign of mental illness. For example, several 
times now over the years I have asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all 
the issue of whether anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by 
simply ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly refused 
to do this, all while insinuating that he has "friends" here, as if the fact 
that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people he was told to stalk 
means that they actually believe his claim to be enlightened. Heck, even 
*Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is enlightened. Nabby probably thinks 
David Lynch and the occasional scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, 
but he doesn't think Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)

It's strangely comforting to know that there are some things that Nabby doesn't 
believe. It betrays a thought process of some sort going on in there that 
doesn't depend on youtube for confirmation. Good for him.

What, after all, would you or anyone else sane THINK of someone who actually 
*did* believe Jim's claims to be enlightened? The prospect of such a person 
existing is almost scarier than Jim existing.  :-)

The clear "sign of poor mental health" IMO is the fact that these people -- at 
this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- seem to feel that they 
have not only the right but a "duty" to harass and stalk those on this forum 
they don't like. I suggest that what they're really trying to do is SILENCE 
these people they stalk, because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged 
stalkers *pretend* that they're doing this stalking "for the good of the 
forum," or "to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what these 
liars might say," but of course we all know that the members of the original 
Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* were deranged 
stalkers. 

I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve's 
sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to what they write. I 
don't read their posts, so they're not talking to me. even though they often 
pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers to reply to their stalker posts, so 
it would seem that they aren't really talking to these people th

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Ann, 

 I am sure you have noticed, this "reading comprehension" issue with Barry.
 

 The brain "filia" that are responsible for nuance, seem to have gotten 
flattened, or something.
 

 I mean, it is sort of funny, but sad too.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure."
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their "duty" 
to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 Oh my God! Still irony challenged, I see. Did you really, really take this 
seriously? I'm sure Curtis "got it" but it went clean over your addled head. 
This is seriously funny, you actually thought I was not being ironic when I 
said this. Surely the "my reward will be in heaven" part was the giveaway?
 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 








 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 okay, good goal Ann, but your normal style of functioning. 

 It's just when we see something that seems out of whack, we comment on it.
 

 To Barry that's being obsessed, or stalking.
 

 He, of course is beyond most, if not all, human foibles.  A model of 
unattachment.
 

 A button pusher on high.  Or at least that's what he says.
 

 Steve, just keep being who you are. You're doing great. You're going to heaven 
for sure (this should get a few people going ;-))
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Ann, it appears that agreement with Barry, trumps any kind of rational 
thinking with sal. 

 go figger!
 

 Yes, but "kindness" is my goal today (although I always find it easy to be 
kind to my animals) so I will hold off commenting on this excellent insight of 
yours. (Oops, I think I did comment by saying it was "excellent".) 
 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

okay, good goal Ann, but your normal style of functioning. 

 It's just when we see something that seems out of whack, we comment on it.
 

 To Barry that's being obsessed, or stalking.
 

 He, of course is beyond most, if not all, human foibles.  A model of 
unattachment.
 

 A button pusher on high.  Or at least that's what he says.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Ann, it appears that agreement with Barry, trumps any kind of rational 
thinking with sal. 

 go figger!
 

 Yes, but "kindness" is my goal today (although I always find it easy to be 
kind to my animals) so I will hold off commenting on this excellent insight of 
yours. (Oops, I think I did comment by saying it was "excellent".) 
 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Ann, it appears that agreement with Barry, trumps any kind of rational 
thinking with sal. 

 go figger!
 

 Yes, but "kindness" is my goal today (although I always find it easy to be 
kind to my animals) so I will hold off commenting on this excellent insight of 
yours. (Oops, I think I did comment by saying it was "excellent".) 
 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Ann, it appears that agreement with Barry, trumps any kind of rational thinking 
with sal. 

 go figger!
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure."
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their "duty" 
to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!
 

 Sal, and here I thought you were a smart guy. Guess not. Puh-leeze, go look up 
some chemistry formula 'cause you certainly lack the ability to recognize 
satire when you see it. Leave the literary pursuits to those who have a sense 
of humour.






 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Barry, what the hell are you saying?   

 Tell me it's not the same 'ol diatribe.
 

 Maybe I'll have time to read it later.
 

 How many posts have you written denigrating the place here, and it's 
participants, every hour, every day, letting us know what a waste of time it is 
for your to participate.
 

 That irony is lost on you.
 

 But, whatever...
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: salyavin808 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
   
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure."
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their "duty" 
to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!






















Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers From Hell 
folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for sure 
that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they were in 
communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's "audience" is in fact the person 
who has been directing her stalking efforts from behind the scenes. 

But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest that...uh...overestimating 
one's "audience" IS, in fact, a sign of mental illness. For example, several 
times now over the years I have asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all 
the issue of whether anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by 
simply ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly refused 
to do this, all while insinuating that he has "friends" here, as if the fact 
that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people he was told to stalk 
means that they actually believe his claim to be enlightened. Heck, even 
*Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is enlightened. Nabby probably thinks 
David Lynch and the occasional scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, 
but he doesn't think Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)

The clear "sign of poor mental health" IMO is the fact that these people -- at 
this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- seem to feel that they 
have not only the right but a "duty" to harass and stalk those on this forum 
they don't like. I suggest that what they're really trying to do is SILENCE 
these people they stalk, because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged 
stalkers *pretend* that they're doing this stalking "for the good of the 
forum," or "to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what these 
liars might say," but of course we all know that the members of the original 
Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* were deranged 
stalkers. 

I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve's 
sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to what they write. I 
don't read their posts, so they're not talking to me. even though they often 
pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers to reply to their stalker posts, so 
it would seem that they aren't really talking to these people they're claiming 
to be "protecting," either. Thus it seems clear that they are 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 12:54 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


I enjoyed your response till you went "its all about Barry" on my ass 
Richard.



>
/So, you don't want to talk about Barry and Sam Harris and their belief 
in Buddhas, karma and reincarnation. Go figure./

>



I am not on board with your use of the term inference and its validity 
in gaining knowledge on its own. It is one of the pieces of the 
epistemological puzzle and fraught with issues. Nor do I accept that 
the claim of consciousness as the ultimate reality was inferred from 
anything. I think someone taught you that this was true. I ain't 
necessarily so IMO. It is certainly a long way from a self evident 
truth from experience.



>
/There's probably not a single person on the planet that hasn't 
*inferred* that they are a self-conscious thinking being and that they 
exist by virtue of being conscious - everyone knows the difference 
between a man that is alive and a man that is dead. It's the most 
obvious reality on the planet and dirt simple. The fact that you are 
conscious is self-evident from just being alive.//From this experience 
we *infer* that //consciousness is the ultimate reality, based on 
experience, and on sense perception, and on verbal testimony. It's not 
complicated.//

//
//Maybe it's time to review the valid means of knowledge://
//
//Sense perception//
//Verbal testimony//
//Inference/
>




And what is wrong with non sequitur outside a formal argument? That is 
what gives juice to our interactions. Trying to restrict everything to 
only what logically follows is a buzz kill man. I hope you will throw 
in as many non sequiturs into  our conversation as you can come up 
with. I'll take something new and tangential over more of the same any 
day.




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :



Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this
discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his
physical existence.

>
/Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that
for every event there is a cause. The question is if
everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause?
This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. //
//
//Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by
first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an
end would have to have a first cause or principle. His
argument for before and after must have an antecedent state
following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing."

Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it
would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to
support change./

/Where is Robin when we need him?/


/>
/On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@...
 [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>



M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded
assertions either, he was fond of making them himself. If he
did he would have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions
instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life we
conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the
former requires another outside verification for its
veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical syllogisms. In
our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so careful.

The classical philosophers have two things working against
them. They were blind to their own presumptive statements
that had not been proven, and then were overfond of the
logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole history
of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions.

The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack
of exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and
astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond the range of our
senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to
speculate about. It takes physicists years of deep study and
advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from
our natural experience.

Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims
like "Everything that comes to exist has a cause." are
ridiculous as an unchallenged first principle. 


>
/It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a
reason for things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they
don't just happen for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost
everyone assumes causation because it is so logical to the human
experience: human excrement always flows downstream; gravity
sucks.//There are no chance events./
>


Turns out quantum events don't follow th

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

There are many non-physical phenomena that on one hand, cannot be 
proven, by physical means. On the other hand, if we take them out of 
the equation of life, life then makes less sense, and becomes less 
enjoyable. An example would be the love between a child, and its 
mother or father, or love between friends.

>
On 10/22/2014 1:46 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
>


What makes you think that is non-physical?

>
/We already went over this: according to Sam Harris, there is nothing in 
the physical world that would indicate that there is a human state of 
consciousness.

//
//"If consciousness means self-consciousness then it cannot be 
identified by logic with the human body. Animals also possess a physical 
body, but not rational consciousness.  If consciousness is a property of 
the body, it must be perceived like other material properties. But 
consciousness is neither seen, smelt or tasted nor touched nor heard." 
Consciousness is private and cannot be shared by others - it is the very 
constructed character of knowing./

>


The scientist would conclude that it is species preservation and 
chemicals, but that doesn't jibe with anyone who has ever hugged 
anyone else.


Astoundingly, scientists do get the occasional hug. How the brain 
generates subjective experience is the mystery not that it is a 
subjective metal experience that wouldn't be there without our brains 
and all their chemicals and electricity.


My perspective tends to be the other way 'round, seeing the eventual 
physical manifestations of all of this world, as an end result, vs. a 
starting point.


I recall Maharishi was rather dismissive, of the coarse nature of a 
strictly material life, a function of lower consciousness.


True, but he had some yagya's to sell you. And I don;t consider him 
much of an authority anyway simply because he pitched a non-sensical 
cosmology with no evidence to support it, and a lot of what he claimed 
is testable but seems to have failed. And a lot of it was wishful 
thinking and appeals to ancient authority. I give him top marks for 
optimism though.


Odd that those with a scientific bias, allow themselves to feel and 
integrate non-scientific emotional responses into their lives, and yet 
be quite imperious on accepting such responses, as they consider them 
non-scientific. What a mess waking state is.


I don;t know how I make it through the day to be honest...

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and 
Madison. Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best.



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:



M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly 
thought provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not 
sure philosophy is the right discipline to answer your question from, 
except to enhance the discussion of "how could we know?"


Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

"Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 
'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material."


M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent 
of knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our 
sense-bound intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, 
even though technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know 
all or in some cases very much about this level of reality should give 
us all some humility about what is real.


But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical 
realm through internal experience have not made their case 
convincingly to me. We have a lot of mystery to explore and I am 
dubious that anyone has cleared it up from a mystical tradition. I am 
putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to push back into the 
mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished by 
religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions 
whose stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" 
over "Let's find out."


The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? 
I wish people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying 
these questions before they announce their assumptions. We need to 
address how we could be confident of such knowledge knowing how 
fallible and prone to self delusions humans are with all of our 
cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in the intellectual 
mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.


Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts 
and humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We 
don't have to swing between the polarities of material reductionism 
and my

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure."
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their "duty" 
to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!
 

 Sal, and here I thought you were a smart guy. Guess not. Puh-leeze, go look up 
some chemistry formula 'cause you certainly lack the ability to recognize 
satire when you see it. Leave the literary pursuits to those who have a sense 
of humour.






 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here 
you have a person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and 
obsession on one particular person she hates by claiming it's her 
religious duty to act like this. This religious fanatic not only 
admits to being a stalker, she *celebrates* it and hopes to end up in 
heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say that was pretty mentally ill, 
wouldn't you? :-)  :-)  :-)

>
On 10/22/2014 6:24 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
>


It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps?

I wonder who the intended audience is?

>
/Barry?/
>
Maybe there's an imaginary one that applauds every such post. That 
would be a sign of poor mental health!

>
/The applause is every time you respond to a post by Ann - that always 
indicates that she has pushed one of your buttons. LoL!//

//
//Ad hominem is the second to last resort of someone who is losing a 
debate and is unable to respond with legitimacy. The last resort, most 
difficult for the ego, is to consider that he might be wrong./

>



Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers 
From Hell folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed 
to know for sure that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would 
indicate that they were in communication, right? So my bet is that 
Ann's "audience" is in fact the person who has been directing her 
stalking efforts from behind the scenes.


She certainly seems to have taken over the role of principle Barry 
hater - and you have to admire the gusto!


But I don't read any of it either, it's too easy to tell from message 
view what a post is going to be about with some people. Judy was 
considerate and always started a Barry post with "Note that Barry 
says" so we knew we could safely scroll past those. If Ann wants 
anyone to read anything that isn't "Bawee" related she should take up 
that technique or suffer the realisation one day that nobody real is 
reading what she obviously spends a lot of time typing.


Sometimes you have to admit that you just don't like someone and let 
them get on with whatever it is they do. Continually going on about it 
is pointless.


But I have similar feelings with TV, some people complain that most of 
it is crap but if it wasn't there'd be no time to do anything else! My 
glass is clearly half-full.


But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest 
that...uh...overestimating one's "audience" IS, in fact, a sign of 
mental illness. For example, several times now over the years I have 
asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all the issue of whether 
anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by simply 
ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly 
refused to do this, all while insinuating that he has "friends" here, 
as if the fact that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people 
he was told to stalk means that they actually believe his claim to be 
enlightened. Heck, even *Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is 
enlightened. Nabby probably thinks David Lynch and the occasional 
scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, but he doesn't think 
Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)


It's strangely comforting to know that there are some things that 
Nabby doesn't believe. It betrays a thought process of some sort going 
on in there that doesn't depend on youtube for confirmation. Good for him.


The clear "sign of poor mental health" IMO is the fact that these 
people -- at this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- 
seem to feel that they have not only the right but a "duty" to harass 
and stalk those on this forum they don't like. I suggest that what 
they're really trying to do is SILENCE these people they stalk, 
because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged stalkers 
*pretend* that they're doing this stalking "for the good of the 
forum," or "to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what 
these liars might say," but of course we all know that the members of 
the original Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* 
were deranged stalkers.


I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and 
Steve's sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to 
what they write. I don't read their posts, so they're not talking to 
me. even though they often pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers 
to reply to their stalker posts, so it would seem that they aren't 
really talking to these people they're claiming to be "protecting," 
either. Thus it seems clear that they are either talking exclusively 
to each other (a strong psychopathic trait among similarly-insane 
inmates in asylums) or to themselves (an even more psychopathic trait).


Wouldn't it be much more sane just to IGNORE the writings -- and the 
writers -- they don't like? Feeling the need to "get" the writers or 
"smack" them in several posts a da

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure."
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their "duty" 
to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 Oh my God! Still irony challenged, I see. Did you really, really take this 
seriously? I'm sure Curtis "got it" but it went clean over your addled head. 
This is seriously funny, you actually thought I was not being ironic when I 
said this. Surely the "my reward will be in heaven" part was the giveaway?
 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 








 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/22/2014 6:47 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

*From:* salyavin808 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
**
Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers 
From Hell folder,

>
/It looks like maybe Ann pushed one of Barry's buttons. LoL!/
>
I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for sure 
that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they 
were in communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's "audience" is in 
fact the person who has been directing her stalking efforts from 
behind the scenes.


She certainly seems to have taken over the role of principle Barry 
hater - and you have to admire the gusto!


Indeed. Even *Judy* never admitted to having read my book as research 
material with which to better stalk me the way Ann has admitted to 
doing lately. Wasn't it Judy herself who once defined stalking as 
follows: "I might also point out that searching the Web for 
information to use against somebody is standard cyberstalking 
behavior." -- Judy Stein, FFL, 11 February 2013


But I don't read any of it either, it's too easy to tell from message 
view what a post is going to be about with some people. Judy was 
considerate and always started a Barry post with "Note that Barry 
says" so we knew we could safely scroll past those. If Ann wants 
anyone to read anything that isn't "Bawee" related she should take up 
that technique or suffer the realisation one day that nobody real is 
reading what she obviously spends a lot of time typing.


I've really never understood those who feel that I or others might be 
"missing" important information by merely scanning the Message View of 
their posts and skipping the rest. One would really have to be a 
cretin to NOT know what one of these people were going to say in their 
posts from the first couple of lines of them. It's not, after all, as 
if they have that much *range* in the things they say. With Ann, one 
appearance of "bawee" is a guaranteed tipoff that she needed her Hate 
Fix for the day and that it's safe to skip the post in which she tried 
to shoot it up.


Sometimes you have to admit that you just don't like someone and let 
them get on with whatever it is they do. Continually going on about it 
is pointless.


And continuing to claim that she's not obsessing on me while 
*obviously* obsessing on me is not only pointless, but more than a 
little insane.


But I have similar feelings with TV, some people complain that most of 
it is crap but if it wasn't there'd be no time to do anything else! My 
glass is clearly half-full.


But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest 
that...uh...overestimating one's "audience" IS, in fact, a sign of 
mental illness. For example, several times now over the years I have 
asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all the issue of whether 
anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by simply 
ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly 
refused to do this, all while insinuating that he has "friends" here, 
as if the fact that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people 
he was told to stalk means that they actually believe his claim to be 
enlightened. Heck, even *Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is 
enlightened. Nabby probably thinks David Lynch and the occasional 
scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, but he doesn't think 
Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)


It's strangely comforting to know that there are some things that 
Nabby doesn't believe. It betrays a thought process of some sort going 
on in there that doesn't depend on youtube for confirmation. Good for him.


What, after all, would you or anyone else sane THINK of someone who 
actually *did* believe Jim's claims to be enlightened? The prospect of 
such a person existing is almost scarier than Jim existing.  :-)


The clear "sign of poor mental health" IMO is the fact that these 
people -- at this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- 
seem to feel that they have not only the right but a "duty" to harass 
and stalk those on this forum they don't like. I suggest that what 
they're really trying to do is SILENCE these people they stalk, 
because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged stalkers 
*pretend* that they're doing this stalking "for the good of the 
forum," or "to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what 
these liars might say," but of course we all know that the members of 
the original Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* 
were deranged stalkers.


I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and 
Steve's sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to 
what they write. I don't read their posts, so they're not talking to 
me. even though they often pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers 
to reply to their stalker posts, so it wo

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

 You may very well be right Mac, because you tend to have a very insightful 
nature and I, more often than not, find your analyses extremely sophisticated. 
When I log on to FFL I always start at the bottom (oldest) post and read up 
answering certain posts as I go and moving past others. As I was quickly 
scrolling down from the top today I glimpsed some post from bawee who seems to 
address my personal post to Curtis. I haven't read it yet but I will, at least 
some of it. From the little I saw it appears rather unkind and very typical of 
bawee. Let's see what anyone does with this, if anything (although I see Steve 
made some remarks afterwards). I think you and Judy are on a similar page when 
it comes to Curtis but I don't always choose to deal with all the machinations 
that go on here so sometimes I simply find the parts of a person I enjoy or 
appreciate the most and speak to those. There are definite traits about Curtis 
that I admire (his music and his teaching) and as for whatever else might be 
going on I'm not in a position to try and change it. Whatever it is Curtis 
either sees or is using bawee for that is between them and is not somewhere I 
need to go.
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/22/2014 7:32 AM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Jesus, salyavin, I gotta tell you,  from what I know about you, and 
what I know about Ann,  count me in the Ann camp.



On the other hand, maybe there's just not a hell of a lot for you to 
hang your hat on.


A lot of deep thinking perhaps, if that's what you want to call it.

P.S. You really play that Judy card, way to often.

>
/You'd think that after the thrashing Judy gave Salya that he would keep 
the conversation on the impersonal level, but apparently he thinks she 
isn't coming back. Go figure.//

//
//Ad hominem is the second to last resort of someone who is losing a 
debate and is unable to respond with legitimacy. The last resort, most 
difficult for the ego, is to consider that he or she might be wrong./

>



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

*From:* "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical 
wiring and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental 
illness is not considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the 
title Barry gave to this thread, the hook if you will, belief in god 
is not a mental illness.



Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is 
religion indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that 
the Inquisition considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable 
(the Inquisition lasted for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in 
ways that are still felt today).


Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But 
let's not talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him 
into line day after day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has 
to do it so I sacrifice myself on the wheel of necessity. There will 
be some reward in heaven for my efforts, I am sure."


This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded 
with heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is 
their "duty" to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as 
if 1) she was entitled to, or 2) that ever happened.


See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here 
you have a person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and 
obsession on one particular person she hates by claiming it's her 
religious duty to act like this. This religious fanatic not only 
admits to being a stalker, she *celebrates* it and hopes to end up in 
heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say that was pretty mentally ill, 
wouldn't you? :-)  :-)  :-)



It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps?

I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one 
that applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Barry, did you read the following paragraph? I regard it as a culturally spread 
malady that has its roots in our nervous system. I think it may be that, from 
an evolutionary viewpoint, a certain gullibility to pick up behaviours and 
ideas helps a child, and to a lesser extent adults, to quickly grasp useful 
information, but that tendency also has the defect of lack of discrimination, 
which is something that must be learned. Scientists, who supposedly have 
suppressed this tendency sometimes come up with crazy ideas which also do not 
work out, but eventually it is discovered these ideas are nuts. Religion makes 
it a proud and worthy stance to guard ideas that have failed to pass muster.  

 The human species lack of hard wiring makes us more flexible for learning; we 
do not go out and dig burrows and look for nuts in the forest everyday 
(usually), but it makes us susceptible to the mental equivalent of a viral 
attack. We here have all experienced the attack, and many here are still 
dancing to the virus's tune. This is why I called religion a memetic malady or 
disease. That is different from organic insanity. Religion is induced insanity. 
The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system. Because culture runs along the fault lines of this weakness, it is 
difficult to construct a civilisation that nurtures rational discrimination. 
Look at the difference between the founding fathers of the United States, who 
had rather sceptical and sparkling intellects, with the way the United States 
has turned out in practice. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure."
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their "duty" 
to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 








 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 That's a nice piece Ann. 

 I feel as though I have a pretty good idea of the "real" person behind 
people's online persona.
 

 I think you might be referring to Barry in some of what you say here.
 

 I've had a changing relationship with him.
 

 He thinks I've changed. I think he's changed.  
 

 Honestly.  I mean, really honestly.  I don't care.
 

 I still like him, although I think he is disappointed in me, and I in him, to 
some extent.
 

 But who the hell cares!
 

 FFL offers a pleasant back and forth (at least enough of the time), and a 
chance to hear different perspectives.
 

 I like Curtis' input because he will ask you in a genuine way, to justify your 
position on things, and ask you to share your opinion.
 

 Lord knows he is repeatedly asked to defend his position on issues.
 

 And it is important, to at some point, say, "fair enough, I guess we see 
things differently" and then move on.
 

 That has been easier to do, these last four, five, or six months. (however 
long its been)   (-:
 

 You know Steve, you have never failed to strike me as a kind man. I think I 
told you long ago that if I were to fall down on the sidewalk and hurt myself 
you'd be the first guy to rush over and help me (or anyone) up. And you still 
come across this way. You are quick to apologize, consistent in your viewpoints 
in a way that ends up appearing very genuine and honest, you seem to live a 
balanced and reasonably fulfilling life where you have children and a spouse 
that no doubt love you very much. It's great to have you on-board. Yours is a 
voice of reason, balance and humility.
 

 
 

 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 9:49 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Yeah, I've seen $cientologists like this in action, and for the life 
of me can't tell any difference between them and Richard, Ann, Jimbo, 
and She Whose Holy Work They Are Continuing In Her Absence. 
Uber-cultists, the whole lot of them.  :-)


I admit to causing part of it by withdrawing my attention from them, 
and depriving them of what they really want -- a captive audience at 
whom to spew their shit. They're reacting as expected, like junkies 
deprived of their fix.


Ann is predictable because this seems to be what she *always* does 
when someone dumps her -- she's just substituted me as the object of 
her revenge-stalking this time instead of Robin. Richard's the same 
troll he's always been, so no surprise there. There has really never 
*been* a time during his tenure on a.m.t. and FFL in which he was 
sane, so IMO it's kinda silly to expect anything approaching sanity 
from him now.


But Jimbo is really the strangest of the lot lately. He's managed to 
take the money he inherited, turn that in his mind into some kind of 
"success," and then move out into the country, effectively cutting 
himself off from all human contact and causing him to make more and 
more and more of his lunatic rants. He probably gets up in the middle 
of the night and goes out to yell the same thing at the skunks on his 
property -- "I'm BETTER than you are! I'm enlightened, and you're NOT. 
So there!"  :-)


I am reading these posts today in chronological order so I haven't yet 
seen anyone's response to this. I would be curious to see Curtis 
respond point by point to this post. What do you think about what 
bawee has said here Curtis? Maybe by the time I have read everything 
up to 7:49 pm my time I will see you have done this already.

>
/Apparently Curtis does not want to talk about Barry's personal beliefs, 
such as a belief in Buddhas, karma, and reincarnation. Obviously Barry 
only wants to talk about personalities, not important questions such as 
does the universe have a beginning and is there an intelligent agent 
behind creation.


Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events. Small minds 
just like to talk about people. Go figure./


/A belief in Buddhas is not a mental illness - it's just an opinion or a 
point of view. Unless Barry is experiencing cognitive dissonance.


//Apparently Barry did not read any of the messages posted by 
masked_zebra, so why would Barry be bringing this subject up again when 
everyone knows that Barry got his nose bloodied by Judy and Robin a few 
months ago on this same subject - St Thomas Aquinas and the prime mover 
or first cause.


Sometimes, it is difficult to reconcile a personal belief with logic, 
common sense or science. At times it's helpful to read a book, take a 
community college course, or consult with your friends about what you 
believe. Get another point of view from someone like Sam Harris. So, 
Harris is a neuroscientist and a Buddhist - that's interesting.


After reading Harris' books, you'd think that Barry could use some of 
that information to make an intelligent point about believing in 
reincarnation and karma. Go figure./


*'Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion**'*
by Sam Harris
Simon & Schuste
Amazon reviews:
http://tinyurl.com/q6wme6g

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Jesus, salyavin, I gotta tell you,  from what I know about you, and what I know 
about Ann,  count me in the Ann camp. 

 On the other hand, maybe there's just not a hell of a lot for you to hang your 
hat on.
 

 A lot of deep thinking perhaps, if that's what you want to call it.
 

 P.S. You really play that Judy card, way to often.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure."
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their "duty" 
to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!






 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Barry, are you serious! 

 You completely miss the whole intent of Ann's comment.
 

 But, like I said, who cares.
 

 You point out what you feel is craziness, stupidity and obsession in other 
people, and they, (including me) do the same to you.
 

 You are no different than the people you criticize, with the exception that 
you make a point (regularly) that you are unattached to your opinions
 

 Welcome to FFL.
 

 80% of the content here are personal attacks, pointing out other people's 
flaws.
 

 And what you've written below is just the perfect example of it.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure."
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their "duty" 
to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 








 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: salyavin808 



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :



Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers From Hell 
folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for sure 
that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they were in 
communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's "audience" is in fact the person 
who has been directing her stalking efforts from behind the scenes. 

She certainly seems to have taken over the role of principle Barry hater - and 
you have to admire the gusto! 

Indeed. Even *Judy* never admitted to having read my book as research material 
with which to better stalk me the way Ann has admitted to doing lately. Wasn't 
it Judy herself who once defined stalking as follows: "I might also point out 
that searching the Web for information to use against somebody is standard 
cyberstalking behavior." -- Judy Stein, FFL, 11 February 2013


But I don't read any of it either, it's too easy to tell from message view what 
a post is going to be about with some people. Judy was considerate and always 
started a Barry post with "Note that Barry says" so we knew we could safely 
scroll past those. If Ann wants anyone to read anything that isn't "Bawee" 
related she should take up that technique or suffer the realisation one day 
that nobody real is reading what she obviously spends a lot of time typing.

I've really never understood those who feel that I or others might be "missing" 
important information by merely scanning the Message View of their posts and 
skipping the rest. One would really have to be a cretin to NOT know what one of 
these people were going to say in their posts from the first couple of lines of 
them. It's not, after all, as if they have that much *range* in the things they 
say. With Ann, one appearance of "bawee" is a guaranteed tipoff that she needed 
her Hate Fix for the day and that it's safe to skip the post in which she tried 
to shoot it up. 


Sometimes you have to admit that you just don't like someone and let them get 
on with whatever it is they do. Continually going on about it is pointless.

And continuing to claim that she's not obsessing on me while *obviously* 
obsessing on me is not only pointless, but more than a little insane. 


But I have similar feelings with TV, some people complain that most of it is 
crap but if it wasn't there'd be no time to do anything else! My glass is 
clearly half-full.

But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest that...uh...overestimating 
one's "audience" IS, in fact, a sign of mental illness. For example, several 
times now over the years I have asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all 
the issue of whether anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by 
simply ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly refused 
to do this, all while insinuating that he has "friends" here,
as if the fact that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people he was 
told to stalk means that they actually believe his claim to be enlightened. 
Heck, even *Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is enlightened. Nabby probably 
thinks David Lynch and the occasional scarecrow next to a crop circle are 
enlightened, but he doesn't think Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)

It's strangely comforting to know that there are some things that Nabby doesn't 
believe. It betrays a thought process of some sort going on in there that 
doesn't depend on youtube for confirmation. Good for him.

What, after all, would you or anyone else sane THINK of someone who actually 
*did* believe Jim's claims to be enlightened? The prospect of such a person 
existing is almost scarier than Jim existing.  :-)

The clear "sign of poor mental health" IMO is the fact that these people -- at 
this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- seem to feel that they 
have not only the right but a "duty" to harass and stalk those on this forum 
they don't like. I suggest that what they're really trying to do is SILENCE 
these people they stalk, because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged 
stalkers *pretend* that they're doing this stalking "for the good of the 
forum," or "to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what these 
liars might say," but of course we all know
that the members of the original Inquisition said exactly the same thing about 
why *they* were deranged stalkers. 

I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve's 
sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to what they write. I 
don't read their posts, so they're not talking to me. even though they often 
pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers to reply to their stalker posts, so 
it would seem that they aren't really talking to these people they're claiming 
to be "protecting," either. Thus it seems clear that they are either talking 
exclusively

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: salyavin808 
 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!






















Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers From Hell 
folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for sure 
that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they were in 
communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's "audience" is in fact the person 
who has been directing her stalking efforts from behind the scenes. 

She certainly seems to have taken over the role of principle Barry hater - and 
you have to admire the gusto! 
 

 But I don't read any of it either, it's too easy to tell from message view 
what a post is going to be about with some people. Judy was considerate and 
always started a Barry post with "Note that Barry says" so we knew we could 
safely scroll past those. If Ann wants anyone to read anything that isn't 
"Bawee" related she should take up that technique or suffer the realisation one 
day that nobody real is reading what she obviously spends a lot of time typing.
 

 Sometimes you have to admit that you just don't like someone and let them get 
on with whatever it is they do. Continually going on about it is pointless.
 

 But I have similar feelings with TV, some people complain that most of it is 
crap but if it wasn't there'd be no time to do anything else! My glass is 
clearly half-full.
 
But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest that...uh...overestimating 
one's "audience" IS, in fact, a sign of mental illness. For example, several 
times now over the years I have asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all 
the issue of whether anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by 
simply ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly refused 
to do this, all while insinuating that he has "friends" here, as if the fact 
that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people he was told to stalk 
means that they actually believe his claim to be enlightened. Heck, even 
*Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is enlightened. Nabby probably thinks 
David Lynch and the occasional scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, 
but he doesn't think Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)

It's strangely comforting to know that there are some things that Nabby doesn't 
believe. It betrays a thought process of some sort going on in there that 
doesn't depend on youtube for confirmation. Good for him.

The clear "sign of poor mental health" IMO is the fact that these people -- at 
this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- seem to feel that they 
have not only the right but a "duty" to harass and stalk those on this forum 
they don't like. I suggest that what they're really trying to do is SILENCE 
these people they stalk, because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged 
stalkers *pretend* that they're doing this stalking "for the good of the 
forum," or "to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what these 
liars might say," but of course we all know that the members of the original 
Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* were deranged 
stalkers. 

I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve's 
sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to what they write. I 
don't read their posts, so they're not talking to me. even though they often 
pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers to reply to their stalker posts, so 
it would seem that they aren't really talking to these people they're claiming 
to be "protecting," either. Thus it seems clear that they are either talking 
exclusively to each other (a strong psychopathic trait among similarly-insane 
inmates in asylums) or to themselves (an even more psychopathic trait).  

Wouldn't it be much more sane just to IGNORE the writings -- and the writers -- 
they don't like? Feeling the need to "get" the writers or "smack" them in 
several posts a day...for months, or even years...seems almost *by definition* 
insane to me. The lurking reporters have confirmed that they see Ann, Jim, 
Richard, and Steve this way, as cult apologists stalking critics of their cult. 
Why can't the stalkers themselves see it?

Maybe they are just lonely and need a peer 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: salyavin808 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 

 
As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and religious
historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 

Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But
let's not talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into
line day after day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do
it so I sacrifice myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some
reward in heaven for my efforts, I am sure."

This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their "duty" 
to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 


See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)



It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 

I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!


Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers From Hell 
folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for sure 
that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they were in 
communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's "audience" is in fact the person 
who has been directing her stalking efforts from behind the scenes. 

But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest that...uh...overestimating 
one's "audience" IS, in fact, a sign of mental illness. For example, several 
times now over the years I have asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all 
the issue of whether anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by 
simply ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly refused 
to do this, all while insinuating that he has "friends" here, as if the fact 
that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people he was told to stalk 
means that they actually believe his claim to be enlightened. Heck, even 
*Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is enlightened. Nabby probably thinks 
David Lynch and the occasional scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, 
but he doesn't think Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)

The clear "sign of poor mental health" IMO is the fact that these people -- at 
this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- seem to feel that they 
have not only the right but a "duty" to harass and stalk those on this forum 
they don't like. I suggest that what they're really trying to do is SILENCE 
these people they stalk, because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged 
stalkers *pretend* that they're doing this stalking "for the good of the 
forum," or "to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what these 
liars might say," but of course we all know that the members of the original 
Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* were deranged 
stalkers. 

I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve's 
sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to what they write. I 
don't read their posts, so they're not talking to me. even though they often 
pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers to reply to their stalker posts, so 
it would seem that they aren't really talking to these people they're claiming 
to be "protecting," either. Thus it seems clear that they are either talking 
exclusively to each other (a strong psychopathic trait among similarly-insane 
inmates in asylums) or to themselves (an even more psychopathic trait).  

Wouldn't it be much more sane just to IGNORE the writings -- and the writers -- 
they don't like? Feeling the need to "get" the writers or "smack" them in 
several posts a day...for months, or even years...seems almost *by definition* 
insane to me. The lurking reporters have confirmed that they see Ann, Jim, 
R

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure."
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their "duty" 
to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!






 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness. 


Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered "holy"), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 

Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: "But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do 
it so I sacrifice myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some 
reward in heaven for my efforts, I am sure."

This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their "duty" 
to stalk him, to "smack him into line day after day," as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 


See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 There are many non-physical phenomena that on one hand, cannot be proven, by 
physical means. On the other hand, if we take them out of the equation of life, 
life then makes less sense, and becomes less enjoyable. An example would be the 
love between a child, and its mother or father, or love between friends.  

 What makes you think that is non-physical?
 

 The scientist would conclude that it is species preservation and chemicals, 
but that doesn't jibe with anyone who has ever hugged anyone else. 
 

 Astoundingly, scientists do get the occasional hug. How the brain generates 
subjective experience is the mystery not that it is a subjective metal 
experience that wouldn't be there without our brains and all their chemicals 
and electricity.
 

 My perspective tends to be the other way 'round, seeing the eventual physical 
manifestations of all of this world, as an end result, vs. a starting point. 
 

 I recall Maharishi was rather dismissive, of the coarse nature of a strictly 
material life, a function of lower consciousness. 
 

 True, but he had some yagya's to sell you. And I don;t consider him much of an 
authority anyway simply because he pitched a non-sensical cosmology with no 
evidence to support it, and a lot of what he claimed is testable but seems to 
have failed. And a lot of it was wishful thinking and appeals to ancient 
authority. I give him top marks for optimism though.
 

 Odd that those with a scientific bias, allow themselves to feel and integrate 
non-scientific emotional responses into their lives, and yet be quite imperious 
on accepting such responses, as they consider them non-scientific. What a mess 
waking state is.
 

 I don;t know how I make it through the day to be honest...
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and Madison. 
Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best.

 


 On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 
 

   M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

 "Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material."

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's find 
out."

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO 
the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the 
fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?






 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I c

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never 
participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that 
while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I 
am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some 
reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or 
they simply create something they wished  they were. I don't know and I don't 
care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can 
push ourselves as a sort of exercise in pressing personal limits. But whatever 
it is, some simply cross the bounds of decency (and I use that word in the old 
fashioned sense, decency being what is civil, sensitive and truthful). They 
commit a kind of trespass on the sensibilities of those who are effected by 
such things. They act like a sort of emotional jack hammer. It's simply not 
what I seek out in life where so much is beautiful and delicate and can enter 
your life as the subtlest whisper of revelation and even promise. Jack hammers 
are a dime a dozen.
 

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 



 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

There are many non-physical phenomena that on one hand, cannot be proven, by 
physical means. On the other hand, if we take them out of the equation of life, 
life then makes less sense, and becomes less enjoyable. An example would be the 
love between a child, and its mother or father, or love between friends.  

 The scientist would conclude that it is species preservation and chemicals, 
but that doesn't jibe with anyone who has ever hugged anyone else. My 
perspective tends to be the other way 'round, seeing the eventual physical 
manifestations of all of this world, as an end result, vs. a starting point. 
 

 I recall Maharishi was rather dismissive, of the coarse nature of a strictly 
material life, a function of lower consciousness. Odd that those with a 
scientific bias, allow themselves to feel and integrate non-scientific 
emotional responses into their lives, and yet be quite imperious on accepting 
such responses, as they consider them non-scientific. What a mess waking state 
is.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and Madison. 
Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best.

 


 On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 
 

   M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

 "Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material."

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's find 
out."

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO 
the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the 
fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?






 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anythin

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

That's a nice piece Ann. 

 I feel as though I have a pretty good idea of the "real" person behind 
people's online persona.
 

 I think you might be referring to Barry in some of what you say here.
 

 I've had a changing relationship with him.
 

 He thinks I've changed. I think he's changed.  
 

 Honestly.  I mean, really honestly.  I don't care.
 

 I still like him, although I think he is disappointed in me, and I in him, to 
some extent.
 

 But who the hell cares!
 

 FFL offers a pleasant back and forth (at least enough of the time), and a 
chance to hear different perspectives.
 

 I like Curtis' input because he will ask you in a genuine way, to justify your 
position on things, and ask you to share your opinion.
 

 Lord knows he is repeatedly asked to defend his position on issues.
 

 And it is important, to at some point, say, "fair enough, I guess we see 
things differently" and then move on.
 

 That has been easier to do, these last four, five, or six months. (however 
long its been)   (-:
 

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never 
participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that 
while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I 
am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some 
reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or 
they simply create something they wished  they were. I don't know and I don't 
care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can 
push ourselves as a sort of exercise in pressing personal limits. But whatever 
it is, some simply cross the bounds of decency (and I use that word in the old 
fashioned sense, decency being what is civil, sensitive and truthful). They 
commit a kind of trespass on the sensibilities of those who are effected by 
such things. They act like a sort of emotional jack hammer. It's simply not 
what I seek out in life where so much is beautiful and delicate and can enter 
your life as the subtlest whisper of revelation and even promise. Jack hammers 
are a dime a dozen.
 

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 



 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never 
participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that 
while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I 
am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some 
reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or 
they simply create something they wished  they were. I don't know and I don't 
care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can 
push ourselves as a sort of exercise in pressing personal limits. But whatever 
it is, some simply cross the bounds of decency (and I use that word in the old 
fashioned sense, decency being what is civil, sensitive and truthful). They 
commit a kind of trespass on the sensibilities of those who are effected by 
such things. They act like a sort of emotional jack hammer. It's simply not 
what I seek out in life where so much is beautiful and delicate and can enter 
your life as the subtlest whisper of revelation and even promise. Jack hammers 
are a dime a dozen.
 

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 



 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 1:57 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Richard,


Your points are excellent.  It's good that you reminded us of 
Aristotle's idea regarding the first cause and principle.  But it 
appears that there are some people here who will disagree with you on 
this point.

>
/So far everyone seems to agree that we are conscious beings and that 
causality is the relation between an event and a second event in which 
the second event is a consequence of the first. The disagreement seems 
about the notion a first cause.


Nobody seems to want to talk about Barry's beliefs in reincarnation and 
levitation, for which there is no physical evidence.//It looks like 
everyone is very interested in metaphysics, but not very interested in 
physics or logic. Go figure. /

>



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :



Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this
discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his
physical existence.

>
/Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that
for every event there is a cause. The question is if
everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause?
This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. //
//
//Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by
first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an
end would have to have a first cause or principle. His
argument for before and after must have an antecedent state
following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing."

Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it
would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to
support change./

/Where is Robin when we need him?/


/>
/On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@...
 [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>



M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded
assertions either, he was fond of making them himself. If he
did he would have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions
instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life we
conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the
former requires another outside verification for its
veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical syllogisms. In
our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so careful.

The classical philosophers have two things working against
them. They were blind to their own presumptive statements
that had not been proven, and then were overfond of the
logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole history
of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions.

The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack
of exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and
astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond the range of our
senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to
speculate about. It takes physicists years of deep study and
advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from
our natural experience.

Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims
like "Everything that comes to exist has a cause." are
ridiculous as an unchallenged first principle. 


>
/It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a
reason for things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they
don't just happen for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost
everyone assumes causation because it is so logical to the human
experience: human excrement always flows downstream; gravity
sucks.//There are no chance events./
>


Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so
obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about
quantum events we have learned that such universals are
unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how their
world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual
asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the
range of our senses.


>
/Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of
consciousness. There is no consciousness other than consciousness,
or not.//

My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that
we infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept
that inference is a valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas,
not being material objects, cannot be perceived; they can only be
inferred.//
//
//Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the
earth as being flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I think 
we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed me 
recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?



 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:33 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, 
Curtis. Thanks.
 

 The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or 
John R rational astounds me.  

Thanks bro but I think Richard was being a bit facetious. He was pretty clear 
about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic 
arguments and was their champion. 

I have been having fun lately writing here again since I am at home many days 
making lesson plans. With all the odd dynamics, I do think the place is vastly 
improved by a lack of a certain poster. It seems a bit less contentious. I 
guess that may not be true for you since there is a committee that is still 
championing the cause. I think you will relate to this video very well. It is 
kind of frighteningly familiar:

Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4
 
 Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of 
scientology at Los Angeles International Airport on 10/19/14.


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
Yeah, I've seen $cientologists like this in action, and for the life of me 
can't tell any difference between them and Richard, Ann, Jimbo, and She Whose 
Holy Work They Are Continuing In Her Absence. Uber-cultists, the whole lot of 
them.  :-)

I admit to causing part of it by withdrawing my attention from them, and 
depriving them of what they really want -- a captive audience at whom to spew 
their shit. They're reacting as expected, like junkies deprived of their fix. 

Ann is predictable because this seems to be what she *always* does when someone 
dumps her -- she's just substituted me as the object of her revenge-stalking 
this time instead of Robin. Richard's the same troll he's always been, so no 
surprise there. There has really never *been* a time during his tenure on 
a.m.t. and FFL in which he was sane, so IMO it's kinda silly to expect anything 
approaching sanity from him now. 

But Jimbo is really the strangest of the lot lately. He's managed to take the 
money he inherited, turn that in his mind into some kind of "success," and then 
move out into the country, effectively cutting himself off from all human 
contact and causing him to make more and more and more of his lunatic rants. He 
probably gets up in the middle of the night and goes out to yell the same thing 
at the skunks on his property -- "I'm BETTER than you are! I'm enlightened, and 
you're NOT. So there!"  :-)
 

 I am reading these posts today in chronological order so I haven't yet seen 
anyone's response to this. I would be curious to see Curtis respond point by 
point to this post. What do you think about what bawee has said here Curtis? 
Maybe by the time I have read everything up to 7:49 pm my time I will see you 
have done this already.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:33 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, 
Curtis. Thanks.
 

 The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or 
John R rational astounds me.  

Thanks bro but I think Richard was being a bit facetious. He was pretty clear 
about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic 
arguments and was their champion. 

I have been having fun lately writing here again since I am at home many days 
making lesson plans. With all the odd dynamics, I do think the place is vastly 
improved by a lack of a certain poster. It seems a bit less contentious. I 
guess that may not be true for you since there is a committee that is still 
championing the cause. I think you will relate to this video very well. It is 
kind of frighteningly familiar:

Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4
 
 Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of 
scientology at Los Angeles International Airport on 10/19/14.


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
Yeah, I've seen $cientologists like this in action, and for the life of me 
can't tell any difference between them and Richard, Ann, Jimbo, and She Whose 
Holy Work They Are Continuing In Her Absence. Uber-cultists, the whole lot of 
them.  :-)

I admit to causing part of it by withdrawing my attention from them, and 
depriving them of what they really want -- a captive audience at whom to spew 
their shit. They're reacting as expected, like junkies deprived of their fix. 

Ann is predictable because this seems to be what she *always* does when someone 
dumps her -- she's just substituted me as the object of her revenge-stalking 
this time instead of Robin. Richard's the same troll he's always been, so no 
surprise there. There has really never *been* a time during his tenure on 
a.m.t. and FFL in which he was sane, so IMO it's kinda silly to expect anything 
approaching sanity from him now. 

But Jimbo is really the strangest of the lot lately. He's managed to take the 
money he inherited, turn that in his mind into some kind of "success," and then 
move out into the country, effectively cutting himself off from all human 
contact and causing him to make more and more and more of his lunatic rants. He 
probably gets up in the middle of the night and goes out to yell the same thing 
at the skunks on his property -- "I'm BETTER than you are! I'm enlightened, and 
you're NOT. So there!"  :-)
 

 I am reading these posts today in chronological order so I haven't yet seen 
anyone's response to this. I would be curious to see Curtis respond point by 
point to this post. What do you think about what bawee has said here Curtis? 
Maybe by the time I have read everything up to 7:49 pm my time I will see you 
have done this already.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the 
nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment 
appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.
 

 Boy oh boy do I like your posts. Yessiree, I surely do.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 12:07 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is 
a little more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam 
Harris (-:

>
According to Sam Harris consciousness is the only thing that cannot be 
an illusion.

>

Anyway, my questions are:
1. how do we know that we know?

>
/We know that we exist because we are self-conscious. Without 
consciousness there would be no perception or perceiver./

>
Which is kind of abstract and probably just me reliving a past life as 
a haetera!

>
/Non sequitur. The fact of consciousness is dirt simple because everyone 
has it, otherwise they would be unconscious. Nobody that is conscious 
goes around saying they don't exist. "Consciousness is the basic fact of 
life that cannot be doubted."- Sam harris/

>

2. what do we mean by knowing?

>
/Knowing is having knowledge structured in consciousness; intelligence. /
>
Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, 
perception could be faulty.

>
/If appearances derived through one sensory channel appear 
contradictory, it is natural to appeal to other senses for 
corroboration. When they contradict, which sense shall we accept as 
reliable? If we observe the naive realist closely, we will find that at 
some times he relies principally on his eyes and, at other times, on his 
ears. When different senses corroborate an error, he even more baffled./

>
Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about 
first love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the 
"truth" of the song.

>
/For past experiences, to be compared, they must be remembered. But 
memory often fails us. What assurance do we have that it is not failing 
us again? Past experiences may have been erroneous consistently. The 
materialist thinks he sees directly back into an existing past which in 
reality has ceased to exist!/


/This is called in philosophy an appeal to instruments and like the 
appeal to other senses, to past experiences, to repetition, and to other 
persons, is a confession of failure. For it is a confession that 
apparently obvious objects are NOT self-evident./

>

But here's my really favorite question,
3. Back to your post: what is meant by "worthwhile reality"?

>
/It is worthwhile to be conscious because that way get to enjoy life and 
gain knowledge that will set us free. You should know the truth and the 
truth will set your free.//There in knowledge higher than absolute 
knowledge./

>

Are there some realities that are not worthwhile?

>
/There is only one single reality - pure consciousness - duality is an 
illusion. /

>



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:



M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly 
thought provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not 
sure philosophy is the right discipline to answer your question from, 
except to enhance the discussion of "how could we know?"


Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

"Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 
'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material."


M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent 
of knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our 
sense-bound intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, 
even though technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know 
all or in some cases very much about this level of reality should give 
us all some humility about what is real.


But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical 
realm through internal experience have not made their case 
convincingly to me. We have a lot of mystery to explore and I am 
dubious that anyone has cleared it up from a mystical tradition. I am 
putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to push back into the 
mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished by 
religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions 
whose stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" 
over "Let's find out."


The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? 
I wish people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying 
these questions before they announce their assumptions. We need to 
address how we could be confident of such knowledge knowing how 
fallible and prone to self delusions humans are with all of our 
cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in the intellectual 
mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.


Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts 
and humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We 
don't h

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Trem23, 

 Regarding Q1, you have to understand who started this thread in the first 
place.  The person who started it is a self-proclaimed "non-theist".  You can 
ask him what this means.  You may or may not get a consistent answer from him.
 

 Regarding Q2, MMY said that everything in the world is based in consciousness. 
 We've been debating this point with some members here for some time.  And, as 
you can gather, the debate is still on-going.
 

 You may be interested in hearing John Hagelin's explanation of the unified 
field, as shown in the link below:
 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM

 

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the 
nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment 
appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Richard, 

 Your points are excellent.  It's good that you reminded us of Aristotle's idea 
regarding the first cause and principle.  But it appears that there are some 
people here who will disagree with you on this point.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

   
 Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno 
about his revelations regarding his physical existence.

 >
 Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event 
there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is 
there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any 
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. 
 
 Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding 
that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first 
cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent 
state following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing." 
 
 Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a 
first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change.
 
 Where is Robin when we need him?
 


 >
 On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 >
 
 M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he 
was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' 
stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life 
we conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the former requires 
another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in 
logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so 
careful.
 
 The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were 
blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then 
were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole 
history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 
 
 The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to 
the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond 
the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are 
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It 
takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal 
with concepts so far from our natural experience.
 
 Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like "Everything 
that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an unchallenged first 
principle. 




 >
 It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a reason for 
things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just happen for no 
reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes causation because it is so 
logical to the human experience: human excrement always flows downstream; 
gravity sucks. There are no chance events.
 >
 Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our 
natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we have learned 
that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how 
their world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked 
by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses.
 




 >
 Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of consciousness. 
There is no consciousness other than consciousness, or not. 
 
 My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that we infer 
that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept that inference is a 
valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas, not being material objects, 
cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred.
 
 Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the earth as being 
flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as static but it is moving 
around the sun. We perceive the disc of the sun and think it is small, yet it 
is much larger that the earth.
 
 We infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and not caused by a 
combination of material properties. We further infer the validity of 
consciousness because we ARE conscious and we are self-conscious. To refuse the 
validity of inference is to refuse to think or discuss. All thoughts, all 
discussions, all doctrines, all affirmations, and all denials, all proofs and 
disproofs are made possible by inference.
 >
 
 Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous for modern 
people. 




 >
 Maybe we should explain this to Barry since he seems only to be able to copy 
and paste cartoons.
 >
 They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully thought out. If 
they are probed from the perspective of their epistemology, these arguments are 
not really why they believe in their idea of God. They believe it for other 
reasons that 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Very, very nice. For somewhat obvious cafe- and waitress-related reasons, I 
liked your answer to question #2 the best, but all were wonderful. 

That is from "Hard Luck Shoes" so you may already know that we never find out. 
My guess is number one because this character is not a personal responsibility 
oriented guy. After sitting too long he might blame the waitress for being rude 
and then stiff her, cluelessly wondering why he is greeted with a stink face 
when he comes back the next time! Or maybe you are right and despite giving her 
a big tip she still wont give him the time of day. He will predictably blame 
his "hard luck shoes" for things not turning out  well, AGAIN.

Thanks for reading.


 

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:01 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
   ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 
 Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little 
more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-:

 

 Anyway, my questions are: 

 1. how do we know that we know? Which is kind of abstract and probably just me 
reliving a past life as a haetera!

M: We all run a system for this consciously or unconsciously. Whatever it is we 
share a common human tendency to believe that our system is a better one than 
it actually is.


 

 2. what do we mean by knowing?
 Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception 
could be faulty.

M: This is too abstract if we remove it from the context. Epistemology or the 
system to evaluate how we can be confident about our knowledge is context 
dependent. Good thinking skills are different when dealing with material things 
or more abstract things but they can exist in each area in more or less degrees.


 S: Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first 
love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the "truth" of the song.

M: I think for many arts we do this and deduce the authenticity of the lyrics 
from matching it to our experience. That is why so many lyrics are formulated 
out of a the hypnosis language or poetry playbook so more people can relate to 
them. Some lyrics are purposely individual so that you take a ride into the 
story. It can still feel true or false to us but we give more leeway to the 
story lyrics. It has to be consistent for the created character. Here are 
example from my songs:

Abstract
The river of missing you , it flows a long long way
It starts the day you left me, wont end till judgement day

And:

Story:
Eating hash browns in a diner under a broken neon sign,
waitress tries to turn my table, but I just take my time
She wont refill my coffee so my cup is gett'n cold
Catch my reflection in the window, I sure am looking old

And combining both:
Well worn at he edges, kinda torn at the seams,
try'n to find our way together, where did we lose our dreams
She left her head shape in her pillow, blankets falling off the bed,
My mind can't stop repeating the last words that she said.


All three are my attempts to either express feelings I have had authentically 
or characters that are genuine enough that you might recognize yourself or 
someone you know in the story. You add the details from your own life and if I 
have succeeded you say: I know that guy, or I AM that person. The first offers 
the least conflicting details so filling in the details is all on you. The 
second is probably not you, but if I have made the character compelling you 
wonder what comes next. Is he going to stiff her on the tip or give her an 
inappropriately big one? What kind of guy is this, we don't know yet.

The third is a dance between you filling in your own details in parts and being 
able to be separate from it all to see another person's life as a fly on the 
wall. Some of the words might connect with your personal experience. Have you 
had a relationship that was "well worn at the edges, kind of torn at the 
seams?" So you might buy into the story on a more personal level until it goes 
in a direction you can't relate to personally.

It is all a work in progress, songwriting is very hard given our exposure to 
fabulous songwriters who are geniuses at this. I am going as far as I can with 
what I have to work with.

 

 But here's my really favorite question, 

 3. Back to your post: what is meant by "worthwhile reality"?
 Are there some realities that are not worthwhile?

M: I was using that as an evaluation of what we pay attention to. I believe 
there is a LOT of reality that is not worth focusing on and that is up to us. I 
also believe that society is judging the value of the humanities and the arts 
badly these days and not paying attention to some wort

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Very, very nice. For somewhat obvious cafe- and waitress-related reasons, I 
liked your answer to question #2 the best, but all were wonderful. 




 From: "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :



Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little 
more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-:


Anyway, my questions are: 

1. how do we know that we know? Which is kind of abstract and probably just me 
reliving a past life as a
haetera!

M: We all run a system for this consciously or unconsciously. Whatever it is we 
share a common human tendency to believe that our system is a better one than 
it actually is.



2. what do we mean by knowing?
Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception 
could be faulty.

M: This is too abstract if we remove it from the context. Epistemology or the 
system to evaluate how we can be confident about our knowledge is context 
dependent. Good thinking skills are different when dealing with material things 
or more abstract things but they can exist in each area in more or less degrees.


S: Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first 
love, and from our own memories of that, we
recognize the "truth" of the song.

M: I think for many arts we do this and deduce the authenticity of the lyrics 
from matching it to our experience. That is why so many lyrics are formulated 
out of a the hypnosis language or poetry playbook so more people can relate to 
them. Some lyrics are purposely individual so that you take a ride into the 
story. It can still feel true or false to us but we give more leeway to the 
story lyrics. It has to be consistent for the created character. Here are 
example from my songs:

Abstract
The river of missing you , it flows a long long way
It starts the day you left me, wont end till judgement day

And:

Story:
Eating hash browns in a diner under a broken neon sign,
waitress tries to turn my table, but I just take my time
She wont refill my coffee so my cup is gett'n cold
Catch my reflection in the window, I sure am looking old

And combining both:
Well worn at he edges, kinda torn at the seams,
try'n to find our way together, where did we lose our dreams
She left her head shape in her pillow, blankets falling off the bed,
My mind can't stop repeating the last words that she said.


All three are my attempts to either express feelings I have had authentically 
or characters that are genuine enough that you might recognize yourself or 
someone you know in the story. You add the details from your own life and if I 
have succeeded you say: I know that guy, or I AM that person. The first offers 
the least conflicting details so filling in the details is all on you. The 
second is probably not you, but if I have made the character compelling you 
wonder what comes next. Is he going to stiff her on the tip or give her an 
inappropriately big one? What kind of guy is this, we don't know yet.

The third is a dance between you filling in your own details in parts and being 
able to be separate from it all to see another person's life as a fly on the 
wall. Some of the words might connect with your personal experience. Have you 
had a relationship that was "well worn at the edges, kind of torn at the 
seams?" So you might buy into the story on a more personal level until it goes 
in a direction you can't relate to personally.

It is all a work in progress, songwriting is very hard given our exposure to 
fabulous songwriters who are geniuses at this. I am going as far as I can with 
what I have to work with.


But here's my really favorite question, 

3. Back to your post: what is meant by "worthwhile reality"?
Are there some realities that are not worthwhile?

M: I was using that as an evaluation of what we pay attention to. I believe 
there is a LOT of reality that is not worth focusing on and that is up to us. I 
also believe that society is judging the value of the humanities and the arts 
badly these days and not paying attention to some worthwhile realities. It is 
undervaluing the importance of how human's communicate through stories: visual, 
linguistic and sensory-moter. We are forgetting how we evolved the brain we 
have through multi-sensory manipulatives and are making some really unwise 
decisions in education because of it.

Now that I have clarified what I meant would you care to share (pun intended) 
your perspective? Thanks for the invitation to express!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little 
more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-:

 

 Anyway, my questions are: 

 1. how do we know that we know? Which is kind of abstract and probably just me 
reliving a past life as a haetera!

M: We all run a system for this consciously or unconsciously. Whatever it is we 
share a common human tendency to believe that our system is a better one than 
it actually is.


 

 2. what do we mean by knowing?
 Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception 
could be faulty.

M: This is too abstract if we remove it from the context. Epistemology or the 
system to evaluate how we can be confident about our knowledge is context 
dependent. Good thinking skills are different when dealing with material things 
or more abstract things but they can exist in each area in more or less degrees.


 S: Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first 
love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the "truth" of the song.

M: I think for many arts we do this and deduce the authenticity of the lyrics 
from matching it to our experience. That is why so many lyrics are formulated 
out of a the hypnosis language or poetry playbook so more people can relate to 
them. Some lyrics are purposely individual so that you take a ride into the 
story. It can still feel true or false to us but we give more leeway to the 
story lyrics. It has to be consistent for the created character. Here are 
example from my songs:

Abstract
The river of missing you , it flows a long long way
It starts the day you left me, wont end till judgement day

And:

Story:
Eating hash browns in a diner under a broken neon sign,
waitress tries to turn my table, but I just take my time
She wont refill my coffee so my cup is gett'n cold
Catch my reflection in the window, I sure am looking old

And combining both:
Well worn at he edges, kinda torn at the seams,
try'n to find our way together, where did we lose our dreams
She left her head shape in her pillow, blankets falling off the bed,
My mind can't stop repeating the last words that she said.


All three are my attempts to either express feelings I have had authentically 
or characters that are genuine enough that you might recognize yourself or 
someone you know in the story. You add the details from your own life and if I 
have succeeded you say: I know that guy, or I AM that person. The first offers 
the least conflicting details so filling in the details is all on you. The 
second is probably not you, but if I have made the character compelling you 
wonder what comes next. Is he going to stiff her on the tip or give her an 
inappropriately big one? What kind of guy is this, we don't know yet.

The third is a dance between you filling in your own details in parts and being 
able to be separate from it all to see another person's life as a fly on the 
wall. Some of the words might connect with your personal experience. Have you 
had a relationship that was "well worn at the edges, kind of torn at the 
seams?" So you might buy into the story on a more personal level until it goes 
in a direction you can't relate to personally.

It is all a work in progress, songwriting is very hard given our exposure to 
fabulous songwriters who are geniuses at this. I am going as far as I can with 
what I have to work with.

 

 But here's my really favorite question, 

 3. Back to your post: what is meant by "worthwhile reality"?
 Are there some realities that are not worthwhile?

M: I was using that as an evaluation of what we pay attention to. I believe 
there is a LOT of reality that is not worth focusing on and that is up to us. I 
also believe that society is judging the value of the humanities and the arts 
badly these days and not paying attention to some worthwhile realities. It is 
undervaluing the importance of how human's communicate through stories: visual, 
linguistic and sensory-moter. We are forgetting how we evolved the brain we 
have through multi-sensory manipulatives and are making some really unwise 
decisions in education because of it.

Now that I have clarified what I meant would you care to share (pun intended) 
your perspective? Thanks for the invitation to express!

 


 On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 
 

   M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

 "Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interact

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
I enjoyed your response till you went "its all about Barry" on my ass Richard.

I am not on board with your use of the term inference and its validity in 
gaining knowledge on its own. It is one of the pieces of the epistemological 
puzzle and fraught with issues. Nor do I accept that the claim of consciousness 
as the ultimate reality was inferred from anything. I think someone taught you 
that this was true. I ain't necessarily so IMO. It is certainly a long way from 
a self evident truth from experience.

And what is wrong with non sequitur outside a formal argument? That is what 
gives juice to our interactions. Trying to restrict everything to only what 
logically follows is a buzz kill man. I hope you will throw in as many non 
sequiturs into  our conversation as you can come up with. I'll take something 
new and tangential over more of the same any day. 



"It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation"  
- Herman Melville


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


 
>>
>>>>
>>>>Everyone in the forum is invited to
participate in this
discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations
regarding his
physical existence.
>
>>>Everyone
on this forum
seems to believe in causation - that for every
event there is a
cause. The question is if everything that
happens has a cause,
is there a first cause? This is probably one of
the first essay
assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a
community college. 
>>>
>>>Everyone knows that Aristotle defines
change and motion by
first concluding that everything that has a
beginning and an end
would have to have a first cause or principle.
His argument for
before and after must have an antecedent state
following
Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from
nothing." 
>>>
>>>Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a
beginning it would
require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in
order to support
change.
>>>
>>>Where
is Robin when we
need him?
>>>>
>On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>M: Robin didn't understand the problems with
unfounded assertions either, he was fond of making
them himself. If he did he would have seen through
Aquinas' stated presumptions instead of being so
enamored with them. In our daily life we conflate
"that's logical" with "that's true" because the
former requires another outside verification for its
veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical
syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the
trouble to be so careful.
>>>
>>>The classical philosophers have two things working
against them. They were blind to their own
presumptive statements that had not been proven, and
then were overfond of the logical conclusions they
derived from them. The whole history of philosophy
was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 
>>>
>>>The second problem they had in such discussions is
their lack of exposure to the non intuitive wold
physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far
beyond the range of our senses. A world where the
rules for macro objects are sometimes ignored and
that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about.
It takes physicists years of deep study and advanced
math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from
our natural experience.
>>>
>>>Now that we know about this level of matter,
universal claims like "Everything that comes to
exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an
unchallenged first principle. 
>
>It's only normal for
average people to assume that there is a reason for things to
happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just happen
for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes
causation because it is so logical to the human experience:
human excrement always flows downstream; gravity sucks.There are no chance 
events.
>>
>
>Turns out quantum events
don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our
natural senses. But even without knowing about
quantum events we have learned that such universals
are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident
about how their world was. We have been humbled by
getting our intellectual asses kicked by the growth
of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our
senses.
>>>
>
>Beyond the range of our
senses is the transcendental field of consciousness. There is no
consciousness other than consciousness, or not.
>
>My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is
that we infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we
accept that inference is a valid means o

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I enjoyed your response till you went "its all about Barry" on my ass Richard.

I am not on board with your use of the term inference and its validity in 
gaining knowledge on its own. It is one of the pieces of the epistemological 
puzzle and fraught with issues. Nor do I accept that the claim of consciousness 
as the ultimate reality was inferred from anything. I think someone taught you 
that this was true. I ain't necessarily so IMO. It is certainly a long way from 
a self evident truth from experience.

And what is wrong with non sequitur outside a formal argument? That is what 
gives juice to our interactions. Trying to restrict everything to only what 
logically follows is a buzz kill man. I hope you will throw in as many non 
sequiturs into  our conversation as you can come up with. I'll take something 
new and tangential over more of the same any day. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

   
 Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno 
about his revelations regarding his physical existence.

 >
 Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event 
there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is 
there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any 
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. 
 
 Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding 
that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first 
cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent 
state following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing." 
 
 Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a 
first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change.
 
 Where is Robin when we need him?
 


 >
 On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 >
 
 M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he 
was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' 
stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life 
we conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the former requires 
another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in 
logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so 
careful.
 
 The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were 
blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then 
were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole 
history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 
 
 The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to 
the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond 
the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are 
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It 
takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal 
with concepts so far from our natural experience.
 
 Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like "Everything 
that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an unchallenged first 
principle. 




 >
 It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a reason for 
things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just happen for no 
reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes causation because it is so 
logical to the human experience: human excrement always flows downstream; 
gravity sucks. There are no chance events.
 >
 Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our 
natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we have learned 
that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how 
their world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked 
by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses.
 




 >
 Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of consciousness. 
There is no consciousness other than consciousness, or not. 
 
 My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that we infer 
that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept that inference is a 
valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas, not being material objects, 
cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred.
 
 Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the earth as being 
flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as static but it is moving 
around the sun. We perceive the disc of the sun and think it is small, yet it 
is much larger that the earth.
 
 We infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and not caused by a 
combination of material properties. We further infer the validity of 
consciousness because we ARE conscious and we are self-conscious. To refuse the 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this
discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his
physical existence.

>
/Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for
every event there is a cause. The question is if everything that
happens has a cause, is there a first cause? This is probably one
of the first essay assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a
community college. //
//
//Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first
concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end would
have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for before
and after must have an antecedent state following Parmenides
statement: "nothing comes from nothing."

Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would
require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change./

/Where is Robin when we need him?/


/>
/On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>



M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions
either, he was fond of making them himself. If he did he would
have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions instead of being so
enamored with them. In our daily life we conflate "that's logical"
with "that's true" because the former requires another outside
verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical
syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so
careful.

The classical philosophers have two things working against them.
They were blind to their own presumptive statements that had not
been proven, and then were overfond of the logical conclusions
they derived from them. The whole history of philosophy was spent
cleaning up many of their confusions.

The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of
exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics
has revealed far beyond the range of our senses. A world where the
rules for macro objects are sometimes ignored and that we are very
poorly prepared to speculate about. It takes physicists years of
deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so
far from our natural experience.

Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like
"Everything that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an
unchallenged first principle. 


>
/It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a reason 
for things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just 
happen for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes 
causation because it is so logical to the human experience: human 
excrement always flows downstream; gravity sucks.//There are no chance 
events./

>


Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so
obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about
quantum events we have learned that such universals are unwise.
The Greeks were much more confident about how their world was. We
have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked by the
growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses.


>
/Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of 
consciousness. There is no consciousness other than consciousness, or not.//


My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that we 
infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept that 
inference is a valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas, not being 
material objects, cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred.//

//
//Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the earth as 
being flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as static but 
it is moving around the sun. We perceive the disc of the sun and think 
it is small, yet it is much larger that the earth.//

//
//We infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and not caused by 
a combination of material properties. We further infer the validity of 
consciousness because we ARE conscious and we are self-conscious. To 
refuse the validity of inference is to refuse to think or discuss. All 
thoughts, all discussions, all doctrines, all affirmations, and all 
denials, all proofs and disproofs are made possible by inference./

>



Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous
for modern people. 


>
/Maybe we should explain this to Barry since he seems only to be able to 
copy and paste cartoons./

>


They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully
thought out. If they are probed from the perspective of their
epistemology, these arguments are not really why they believe in
their idea of God. They believe it for other reasons that they
believe they can shield with the pretense of rationality. They
want their real reasons for belief to be beyond

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little 
more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-:


Anyway, my questions are: 

1. how do we know that we know? Which is kind of abstract and probably just me 
reliving a past life as a haetera!


2. what do we mean by knowing?
Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception 
could be faulty.

Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first love, 
and from our own memories of that, we recognize the "truth" of the song.

But here's my really favorite question, 

3. Back to your post: what is meant by "worthwhile reality"?
Are there some realities that are not worthwhile?



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
 


  
M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

"Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 
'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material."

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's find 
out."

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO 
the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the 
fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?








---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 10:42 AM, inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>


there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a 
belief in God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.



>
/There are actually three questions running through this thread://
//
/

1. /Is Barry mentally ill for believing in Buddhas, karma or
   reincarnation?/
2. /Are there any proofs for the existence of Buddhas?/
3. /Why does Barry believe in reincarnation and karma?/

>


the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of 
mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to 
what a mental illness is, but the question  is believing in the 
efficacy of trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun  : )



>
/The real question is why is Barry posting his beliefs in Buddhism and 
at the same time posting atheist messages directed at Hindus or 
Christians? This seems like a case of cognitive dissonance. Everyone on 
this list knows Barry has claimed a belief in Buddhas, karma and 
reincarnation. It's not complicated./



Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence 
of God since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm 
suggesting:   is a belief in God justifiable?



>
/We had a very long discussion about this with Robin Carlsen about St. 
Thomas Aquinas defense of the existence of God using the proofs of 
Aristotle and Parmenides as to the existence of a prime mover. In this 
argument everything is based on change and the law of causality.


For anything to move or change there must be a cause. There can be no 
change without movement or change and there must be cause for everything 
that happens. The purpose of Aristotle's argument, is that there is at 
least one eternal unmoved mover that must exist, in order to support 
everyday change.


However, the idea of first and only cause, something that does not 
itself need a cause, is nonsensical and cannot be applied according to 
Immanuel Kant who "attempted to put an end to what he considered an era 
of futile and speculative theories of human experience, while resisting 
the skepticism of thinkers such as David Hume."/


/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant/
>


We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no 
proof, but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may 
believe someone lied to us, even though we have no proof.



>
/Probably none of us has been up in space to see the curvature of the 
earth, yet we all believe the earth is spherical in shape. Very often we 
depend on verbal testimony for our justification for a belief - at other 
times we use inference, both are valid means of knowledge./

>


[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher]


>
/There are several arm-chair philosophers on this list//, Barry being 
not one of them: masked_zebra was apparently steeped in Christian and 
Islamic theology having been a monk for several years; emptybill was 
apparently a monk in the Eastern Christian church for several years; 
Curtis has a degree in philosophy from MUM;//and I took Philosophy 101 
under Richard Braugham, Ph.D. at a local community college.//I also took 
Logic 101 and Ethics 101. Go figure./

>


I am going to restate the 2nd question as:Is a believe in the 
existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material 
justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include 
anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with 
the physical/material.



>
/The ultimate reality is pure consciousness - there is much 
justification for believing this. According to Ramana, the validity is 
not metaphysical but it is experiential. Consciousness is the prior 
condition of every experience; the self or ego is an illusory appearance 
within it. Consciousness is prior to everything else that exists. 
Consciousness is all there is - the experience of "I-am" is the only 
real certainty./

>


An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would 
believe that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all 
observable phenomenon, including the existence of the of the 
physical/material world itself.



>
/Physical science cannot explain consciousness because there is nothing 
in the physical world to prove the existence of consciousness. Without 
consciousness there would be no material/physical world. There must be 
consciousness or else there would be no perception. Consciousness is 
prior to everything else. According to Parmenides, "nothing comes from 
nothing"./

>


For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to 
having  read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the 
need for the nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and 
the moment by moment appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.


/The thread posted by Barry is really a series of straw man statements, 
pasted by Barry to deny his cognitive dissonance. There

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Gotta agree with you on this one, Share. 


I also have to say that if there is anyone on the planet I'd most like to see 
have a sit-down, on-the-record conversation with Sam Harris, it would be 
Curtis. 




 From: "Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and Madison. 
Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best.



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
 


  
M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

"Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 
'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material."

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much
 more amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions 
whose stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's 
find out."

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality
 beyond the hard physical. But IMO the better we are prepared to evaluate 
claims the quicker we will sort out the fascinating and true from the 
fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?








---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the
 notion of mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as 
to what a mental illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of 
trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression
 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything 
that interacts with the physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and Madison. 
Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best.



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
 


  
M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

"Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 
'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material."

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's find 
out."

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO 
the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the 
fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?








---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the 
nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment 
appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

 "Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material."

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's find 
out."

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO 
the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the 
fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?





 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the 
nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment 
appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, 
Curtis. Thanks.

The very IDEA that someone could consider
Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or John R rational astounds me.  

Thanks bro but I think Richard was being a bit facetious. He was pretty clear 
about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic 
arguments and was their champion. 

I have been having fun lately writing here again since I am at home many days 
making lesson plans. With all the odd dynamics, I do think the place is vastly 
improved by a lack of a certain poster. It seems a bit less contentious. I 
guess that may not be true for you since there is a committee that is still 
championing the cause. I think you will relate to this video very well. It is 
kind of frighteningly familiar:

Scientology Top Managers In Action
 
   Scientology Top Managers In Action  
Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of 
scientology at Los Angeles International Airport on 10/19/14.  
View on www.youtube.comPreview by Yahoo
 Yeah, I've seen $cientologists like this in action, and for the life of me 
can't tell any difference between them and Richard, Ann, Jimbo, and She Whose 
Holy Work They Are Continuing In Her Absence. Uber-cultists, the whole lot of 
them.  :-)

I admit to causing part of it by withdrawing my attention from them, and 
depriving them of what they really want -- a captive audience at whom to spew 
their shit. They're reacting as expected, like junkies deprived of their fix. 

Ann is predictable because this seems to be what she *always* does when someone 
dumps her -- she's just substituted me as the object of her revenge-stalking 
this time instead of Robin. Richard's the same troll he's always been, so no 
surprise there. There has really never *been* a time during his tenure on 
a.m.t. and FFL in which he was sane, so IMO it's kinda silly to expect anything 
approaching sanity from him now. 

But Jimbo is really the strangest of the lot lately. He's managed to take the 
money he inherited, turn that in his mind into some kind of "success," and then 
move out into the country, effectively cutting himself off from all human 
contact and causing him to make more and more and more of his lunatic rants. He 
probably gets up in the middle of the night and goes out to yell the same thing 
at the skunks on his property -- "I'm BETTER than you are! I'm enlightened, and 
you're NOT. So there!"  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the 
nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment 
appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, 
Curtis. Thanks.
 

 The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or 
John R rational astounds me.  

Thanks bro but I think Richard was being a bit facetious. He was pretty clear 
about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic 
arguments and was their champion. 

I have been having fun lately writing here again since I am at home many days 
making lesson plans. With all the odd dynamics, I do think the place is vastly 
improved by a lack of a certain poster. It seems a bit less contentious. I 
guess that may not be true for you since there is a committee that is still 
championing the cause. I think you will relate to this video very well. It is 
kind of frighteningly familiar:

Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 
 Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of 
scientology at Los Angeles International Airport on 10/19/14.
 
 
 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  


 



 

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:56 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

   
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/20/2014 11:43 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Xeno,
 

 I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said.  In the physical existence 
of human beings here on earth, everyone has to have a mother and a father.  
Were you not created by your father's sperm that impregnated your mother's egg? 
 Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9 months before you were born here on 
earth?
 

 I'll give you my thoughts about Barker's ideas.  But I'm taking the KCA 
argument one at a time which starts with statement 1.  Your statements are so 
astonishing that we need more clarification about your thoughts and logic.
 
 
 Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno 
about his revelations regarding his physical existence.

 >
 Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event 
there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is 
there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any 
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. 
 
 Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding 
that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first 
cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent 
state following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing." 
 
 Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a 
first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change.
 
 Where is Robin when we need him?

M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he 
was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' 
stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life 
we conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the former requires 
another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in 
logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so 
careful.

The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were 
blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then 
were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole 
history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 

The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to 
the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond 
the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are 
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It 
takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal 
with concepts so far from our natural experience.

Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like "Everything 
that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an unchallenged first 
principle. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so 
obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we 
have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more 
confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our 
intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
"both of you far less than raging successes in the world."

M: This often repeated idea is a key to understanding you Jim. I think it lies 
at the root of your need to present yourself in a ridiculously inflated way You 
are using your claims as a version of spiritual one upmanship that even spill 
over into the material world. It seems important to your fantasy that Barry and 
I are not enjoying as good or as successful a life as you are on any level. 
Have you ever reflected on why you feel such a need?

You don't know me or have any idea of any measure of my success in the world. 
How could you? You don't know my income or how it fits into the standards for 
my profession, You don't know anything about how I am viewed by the community 
of my peers or institutions that hire me. You know nothing about what 
recognition I may have received in my field or how my life fits into the goals 
for my own success which is a huge aspect of the quality of life.

And yet you feel confident that you have somehow beaten me in "success" in 
life. Without knowing a single relevant detail you feel confident making such a 
statement. What's up with that Jim? Do you see that is is all about you, and 
due to a lack of information, has nothing to do with me?

Are you juxtaposing your life as the standard of a "raging success?" Is this 
another example of your odd lack of self awareness about yourself, an over 
inflation of something quite ordinary.

When I worked in finance I used to meet guys like you at dreadful corporate 
mixers. Guys who had a desperate need to over-inflate their accomplishments. 
They would talk over others and always assume that their bragging about how 
wonderful they were was having an impressive effect on those around them.

People would shake their heads and smilingly retreat from the barrage of "I am 
better than you in this way and this way and this way" always clueless about 
who they were talking to or what they had achieved in their own lives. 

It comes off as desperate and a little pathetic Jim. You don't need to run this 
game. You have plenty of talents and abilities to be proud of without having to 
be the guy who is actually states you are better than other people here. Maybe 
you are just one of us, living your own choices as we are living ours. Life is 
not a contest between us so the fantasy that you are winning Charlie Sheen 
style is just that: a fantasy. An unpleasant one.
 



 I have a lot of friends on here. No need to pretend otherwise. Perhaps you 
should be giving advice to the turd flinging chimp on here, whom you find so 
much in common with, both of you far less than raging successes in the world.  

 Your attempt at sussing my motivation, is absurd. I don't play that same game 
that the chimp does, and am perfectly happy, to continue telling you what you 
don't want to hear, regardless of you believing me, about anything, even my 
enlightenment. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response 
hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry.

M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that 
case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get 
back at me for not going along with your "I am enlightened and you are not" 
routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out.

But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride 
as an indictment of your character. 

But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a leader in 
the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 19 Principals in 
one of my school county districts about the need to bring arts integrated 
teaching in their schools, at the invitation of the regional arts director who 
is a fan of my work. 

As far as making a living in the arts is concerned you got it wrong sorry to 
disappoint, I am very much an insider working to improve the educational system 
in my area with my own choice of music from within the system, and recognized 
by it.

So you can fantasize about me not being successful in my chosen field if you 
want to grind out your own ill will. But it just doesn't fit the actual facts 
of the work I am doing or how it is being recognized in my community.  I was 
just changing lives one classroom at a time today.

Oh yeah:

J: But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as 
represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane 
thinking.

There are so many funny things about this I hardly know where to start. If fact 
coming from you the irony is too perfect to comment on. I'll just let the "rest 
of the world" think about who just said this!


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 8:27 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


You seem to be just trolling.


>
/Now that's a thought-stopper!/
>


Do you practice TM?


>
/Non sequitur.//"TM" has not been defined./
>


I was  talking about things that spiritual practices advertise they 
can bring into one's awareness. These things are private, you cannot 
prove you have these kinds of experiences. My body has a mother and 
father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my existence 
does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone 
(except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of 
universe fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that 
there must be one individual in any given universe for which truth is 
a non entity)



>
/Non sequitur.//"Spiritual" has not been defined./
>
As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is 
indeterminate that it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is 
true?

>
/In Buddhist philosophy, karma is the theory of action and result based 
on the theory of interdependent co-arising or dependent origination 
which states:  everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and 
conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity. /

>


1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

a. How has it been established that this is true?
b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a 
cause'?


That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, 
because believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes 
other things to 'begin to exist' although how that is accomplished is 
beyond me.

>
/All change must have a beginning and an end. In order to have a 
beginning there must be a cause. This is simple Philosophy 101. There is 
nothing in the universe that exists without change. In order for 
anything to change there must be a cause agent.//Causality is the 
relation between an event and a second event in which the second event 
is a consequence of the first./

>
It is a failed attempt to get around the problem of infinite 
regression of causes so the uncaused cause idea seems more 
respectable, which it is not. However in the statement below, we have 
Fred, an uncaused cause who was the cause of the beginning of the 
existence of god.

>
/Non sequitur./ 
>
To return to the first statement in the Kalam argument, I have no 
reason to suppose that that first statement is true. You apparently 
think it is true. Why?

>
/Obviously consciousness is prior to everything else in the cosmos. In 
fact, consciousness is all there is in the universe. The only certainty 
you have is that you are self-conscious that you exist. Time, space and 
physicality occur within consciousness, not the other way around. The 
present is the only real moment of experience./


An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality
by Sam Harris
http://nautil.us/issue/16/nothingness/an-atheists-guide-to-spirituality
>


If you are flabbergasted at what I said previously, you are clearly 
unaware of the nature of human imagination, and human nature in 
general, and the great variability of possible human experiences.

>
/In the Western philosophical tradition, discussion stretches back at 
least to Aristotle, and the topic remains a staple in contemporary 
philosophy.//

//
//Non sequitur./ 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, 
Curtis. Thanks.

The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or John 
R rational astounds me.  




 From: "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


On 10/20/2014 11:43 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

 
>>Xeno,
>>
>>
>>I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said.  In
the physical existence of human beings here on earth,
everyone has to have a mother and a father.  Were you not
created by your father's sperm that impregnated your
mother's egg?  Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9
months before you were born here on earth?
>>
>>
>>I'll give you my thoughts about Barker's ideas.  But
I'm taking the KCA argument one at a time which starts
with statement 1.  Your
statements are so astonishing that we need more
clarification about your thoughts and logic.
>>
>>
>>Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this
discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his
physical existence.
>
>Everyone on this forum
seems to believe in causation - that for every event there is a
cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause,
is there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay
assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a community college. 
>
>Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by
first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end
would have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for
before and after must have an antecedent state following
Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing." 
>
>Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would
require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support
change.
>
>Where is Robin when we
need him?
>
>M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he 
>was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' 
>stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life 
>we conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the former requires 
>another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in 
>logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so 
>careful.
>
>The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were 
>blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then 
>were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole 
>history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 
>
>The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to 
>the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond 
>the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are 
>sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It 
>takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal 
>with concepts so far from our natural experience.
>
>Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like "Everything 
>that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an unchallenged first 
>principle. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so 
>obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events 
>we have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more 
>confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our 
>intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the 
>range of our senses.
>
>Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous for modern 
>people. They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully thought 
>out. If they are probed from the perspective of their epistemology, these 
>arguments are not really why they believe in their idea of God. They believe 
>it for other reasons that they believe they can shield with the pretense of 
>rationality. They want their real reasons for belief to be beyond scrutiny. I 
>guarantee you that this argument is not even on he belief web John has built 
>for himself so he can believe in God. It isn't even a branch on that tree.He 
>thought it would be a useful stick to poke at non believers and it failed 
>because he doesn't understand it himself, it just sounded authoritative. 
>
>I think all the God beliefs base on scripture are idiotic

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/20/2014 11:43 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Xeno,
 

 I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said.  In the physical existence 
of human beings here on earth, everyone has to have a mother and a father.  
Were you not created by your father's sperm that impregnated your mother's egg? 
 Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9 months before you were born here on 
earth?
 

 I'll give you my thoughts about Barker's ideas.  But I'm taking the KCA 
argument one at a time which starts with statement 1.  Your statements are so 
astonishing that we need more clarification about your thoughts and logic.
 
 
 Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno 
about his revelations regarding his physical existence.

 >
 Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event 
there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is 
there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any 
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. 
 
 Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding 
that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first 
cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent 
state following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing." 
 
 Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a 
first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change.
 
 Where is Robin when we need him?

M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he 
was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' 
stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life 
we conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the former requires 
another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in 
logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so 
careful.

The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were 
blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then 
were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole 
history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 

The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to 
the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond 
the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are 
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It 
takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal 
with concepts so far from our natural experience.

Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like "Everything 
that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an unchallenged first 
principle. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so 
obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we 
have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more 
confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our 
intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the 
range of our senses.

Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous for modern 
people. They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully thought 
out. If they are probed from the perspective of their epistemology, these 
arguments are not really why they believe in their idea of God. They believe it 
for other reasons that they believe they can shield with the pretense of 
rationality. They want their real reasons for belief to be beyond scrutiny. I 
guarantee you that this argument is not even on he belief web John has built 
for himself so he can believe in God. It isn't even a branch on that tree.He 
thought it would be a useful stick to poke at non believers and it failed 
because he doesn't understand it himself, it just sounded authoritative. 

I think all the God beliefs base on scripture are idiotic because it requires 
someone to assume that God had a hand in writing an obviously human produced 
work of literature. That people entertain this notion today is beyond me, but 
it causes many problems in this world. I consider it a very dangerous wrong 
belief that someone has a book from God with details about our lives. (Like 
kill the infidels, or God gave us this land.)

I am most sympathetic to the mystical experience claims for the existence for 
God having had enough experiences of my own to understand how compelling they 
are. I no longer believe that the actual existence of a God is the best 
explanation for these experiences, but I could certainly be wrong and might be 
proven wrong some day.

But not today.






 >
 

 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLi

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

**


I think the reason this happens is that Jim and other 
spiritual/religious types don't realise their beliefs are emotional 
rather than logical and insult any contrarians in an accordingly 
similar way to how they feel they've been slighted.

>
On 10/21/2014 3:09 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

>
Exactly. They are OFFENDED that someone like myself or you has 
overcome the Fear Of God that society tried to imprint us with, and 
they haven't. They're still terrified that if they express doubt of 
any kind, their imaginary friend God will smite them. Can't risk that. 
And they're more than a little pissed of that God has *not* smitten 
us, so they have to try to make up for him being a slacker and try to 
smite us themselves.  :-)

>
/Straw man argument. For those unfamiliar with the term, a straw man is 
a common type of argument that someone brings out to intentionally 
misrepresent the original topic of the argument. //

//
//It's like when two people are debating something and one guy is losing 
the argument big time, so he tries to change the subject. The logic of 
this is that if the debater can't win an argument on his or her own 
merits they then try to shift the topic of the argument. It's a very 
common tactic used by anonymous informants on the internet./