the telepathy thread

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

23 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

In Tibetan Buddhism it’s referred to as Crazy Wisdom, which the Guru adopts in order to shock their students out of fixed cultural and psychological patterns.

 

23 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Their methods are unconventional and typically antithetical to the status quo, but extremely effective. They indirectly re-enforce societal customs by directly enforcing their own powerful sense of humor into the social dynamic. They show by bad example how not to behave.

So, clowns shock people out of fixed cultural patterns by indirectly reinforcing societal customs?

There's many forms of the Trickster depending on culture, and there's even variations within certain cultures. The personality/preferences of the Trickster must be taken into account.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

There's many forms of the Trickster depending on culture, and there's even variations within certain cultures. The personality/preferences of the Trickster must be taken into account.

Oh, I agree there are many forms of trickster. Your failure to detect the blatant self contradiction in the article you quoted shows how easily they can fool themselves, and others.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

There's many forms of the Trickster depending on culture, and there's even variations within certain cultures. The personality/preferences of the Trickster must be taken into account.

Oh, I agree there are many forms of trickster. Your failure to detect the blatant self contradiction in the article you quoted shows how easily they can fool themselves, and others.

Who says I failed to detect a blatant self-contradiction in the article. Could it be possible you misinterpreted something?  Apparently you think not.

But more on the Trickster archetype: ....I can't really say that I like it. I tend to not like manipulation but prefer to be direct and honest. However I recognize that could put me at a disadvantage when trying to affect change.  I also recognize that this is part of some Native cultures, and that I may not understand it fully.

There's a few therapies that utilize it, and I never liked it in that context either.

[Innula Zenovka]

26 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Looks like he poked some of your sacred cows.

Actually, yes, trying to be reasonably accurate about science and history rather than making it up as you go along rather "sacred cows" of mine, as you put it, and since I didn't buy a programme, I'm unable properly to distinguish between, for example, Mr Deloria's views on dinosaurs being contemporaries of humans and those of young earth creationists or to understand why I should take one more seriously than the other (or maybe they're all sacred clowns?).

 

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Innula Zenovka said:

37 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Looks like he poked some of your sacred cows.

Actually, yes, trying to be reasonably accurate about science and history rather than making it up as you go along rather "sacred cows" of mine, as you put it, and since I didn't buy a programme, I'm unable properly to distinguish between, for example, Mr Deloria's views on dinosaurs being contemporaries of humans and those of young earth creationists or to understand why I should take one more seriously than the other (or maybe they're all sacred clowns?).

I like Science but it has its faults, and I don't mind a culture that was slaughtered and forced to live in the ways this slaughtering culture deemed, for shooting a few arrows (even in a Trickster way) at their oppressors.

People who have been terrorized have their ways of fighting back against an all-powerful culture that denigrates their way of life.

Besides, what if Deloria even actually believed humans were alive at the same time as dinosaurs? Would that mean you would discredit everything he said?  See, you don't even know what he said that is far more important....it's much more important than this silly dinosaur issue.

[Innula Zenovka]

33 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You can contact this guy, John Hagelin, at CERN, who seems to be validating the world beyond pure materialism that you can't see beyond:

John Hagelin, Ph.D., is a world-renowned quantum physicist, educator, author, and leading proponent of peace.

Dr. Hagelin conducted pioneering research at CERN (the European Center for Particle Physics) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. He is responsible for the develop­ment of a highly successful grand unified field theory based on the superstring. His articles on electroweak unification, grand unification, super-symmetry and cosmology include some of the most cited references in the physical sciences.

In addition, Dr. Hagelin has spent much of the past quarter century leading a scientific investigation into the foundations of human consciousness. He is one of the world’s preeminent researchers on the effects of meditation on brain development, and the use of collective meditation to defuse acute societal stress, to reduce associated crime and violence, and to promote societal peace.

In recognition of his outstanding achievements, Dr. Hagelin was named winner of the prestigious Kilby Award, which recognizes scientists who have made “major contributions to society through their applied research in the fields of science and technology.” The award recognized Dr. Hagelin as “a scientist in the tradition of Einstein, Jeans, Bohr and Eddington.”

Dr. Hagelin is President of the Global Union of Scientists for Peace.
He received his A.B. summa ***** laude from Dartmouth College in 1975
and his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1981. He also serves as President,
professor of physics, and director of the Institute of Science, Technology and
Public Policy at Maharishi University of Management in Iowa, USA

 

 

That would be this Dr John Haglein, would it, who was, in fact, a post-doctoral researcher at CERN for less than a year, some 40 years ago?

Quote

Hagelin graduated in physics in 1981, and began post-doctoral research at the CERN for less than a year, then at the SLAC. He vanished in 1983 in the midst of personal problems and reappeared a year later as physics professor at the Maharishi University of Management (MUM), then became its president.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I like Science but it has its faults, and I don't mind a culture that was slaughtered and forced to live in the ways this slaughtering culture deemed, for shooting a few arrows (even in a Trickster way) at their oppressors.

People who have been terrorized have their ways of fighting back against an all-powerful culture that denigrates their way of life.

Besides, what if Deloria even actually believed humans were alive at the same time as dinosaurs? Would that mean you would discredit everything he said?  See, you don't even know what he said that is far more important....it's much more important than this silly dinosaur issue.

You mean, apart from his views on dinosaurs he's quite sane?

Edited July 8, 2021 by Innula Zenovka

[Madelaine McMasters]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Who says I failed to detect a blatant self-contradiction in the article. Could it be possible you misinterpreted something?  Apparently you think not.

But more on the Trickster archetype: ....I can't really say that I like it. I tend to not like manipulation but prefer to be direct and honest. However I recognize that could put me at a disadvantage when trying to affect change.  I also recognize that this is part of some Native cultures, and that I may not understand it fully.

There's a few therapies that utilize it, and I never liked it in that context either.

I believe I said you failed to detect a blatant self contradiction. It's always possible I've misinterpreted something. I do that all the time. It all boils down to probabilities, Luna. Your insinuation that you did detect the nonsense now creates another judgment call involving probabilities.

What's more likely?
1) You didn't detect the nonsense, and your promulgation of it was an error.
2) You did detect the nonsense, and your promulgation of it was intentional.

If I slice through this with Hanlon's Razor, my original judgment seems the more charitable, doesn't it?

 

 

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Innula Zenovka said:

That would be this Dr John Haglein, would it, who was, in fact, a post-doctoral researcher at CERN for less than a year, some 40 years ago?

"Dr. Hagelin conducted pioneering research at CERN (the European Center for Particle Physics) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. He is responsible for the develop­ment of a highly successful grand unified field theory based on the superstring. His articles on electroweak unification, grand unification, super-symmetry and cosmology include some of the most cited references in the physical sciences."

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Innula Zenovka said:

You mean, apart from his views on dinosaurs he's quite sane?

Innula, you have to be kidding right?

People have all sorts of beliefs, some that seem strange to me...but I never trash a person in their entirety because they have some beliefs I don't agree with or that don't agree with the current scientific views.

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I believe I said you failed to detect a blatant self contradiction. It's always possible I've misinterpreted something. I do that all the time. It all boils down to probabilities, Luna. Your insinuation that you did detect the nonsense now creates another judgment call involving probabilities.

What's more likely?
1) You didn't detect the nonsense, and your promulgation of it was an error.
2) You did detect the nonsense, and your promulgation of it was intentional.

If I slice through this with Hanlon's Razor, my original judgment seems the more charitable, doesn't it?

The only thing I detect in all this cr*p of nonsense you typically pride yourself in is that a part of me wants to tell you to....bleep de bleep bleep.

You like to derail don't you?

Let's get back to the meat of it all....is there only meat to it all? lol

[Innula Zenovka]

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

"Dr. Hagelin conducted pioneering research at CERN (the European Center for Particle Physics) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. He is responsible for the develop­ment of a highly successful grand unified field theory based on the superstring. His articles on electroweak unification, grand unification, super-symmetry and cosmology include some of the most cited references in the physical sciences."

Indeed he did:

Quote

In 1987 and 1989 Hagelin published two papers in the Maharishi University of Management's Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science[25] in which he claimed that superstring theory's "unified field" was identical to what Maharishi Mahesh Yogi called the "unified field of consciousness". Hagelin argued that consciousness is a fundamental property of the natural world, and that TM practitioners can experience a state of consciousness "in which the observer, the process of observation, and the observed are unified". This, he argued, is the experience of the unified field of physics.[26][11][27]

Hagelin's arguments at times invoked numerology and critical interpretation of ancient Hindu scriptures, the Vedas. For instance he linked five different spin types in quantum mechanics to the five tanmatras; he also linked the name of the theory he favors—"superstring" theory—with a Vedic passage that he translated as: "My body is called a string." More central to his argument was his claim that quantum mechanics permits identifying the physical with the mental, an idea he found echoed in the Vedas. A theory linking consciousness to the unified field would be the only natural explanation for purported phenomena exhibited by advanced TM practitioners, he argued, such as the Maharishi effect, levitation and invisibility. Philosopher Evan Fales and sociologist Barry Markovsky remarked that, because no such phenomena have been validated, Hagelin's "far-fetched explanation lacks purpose". They went on to say that the parallels Hagelin highlighted rest on ambiguity, obscurity and vague analogy, supported by the construction of arbitrary similarities.[28]

In a 1992 news article for Nature about Hagelin's first presidential campaign, Chris Anderson wrote that Hagelin was "by all accounts a gifted scientist, well-known and respected by his colleagues", but that his effort to link the flipped SU(5) unified field theory to TM "infuriates his former collaborators", who feared it might taint their own work and requests for funding. John Ellis, then director of CERN's department of theoretical physics—who worked with Hagelin on SU(5)—reportedly asked Hagelin to stop comparing it to TM. Anderson wrote that two-page advertisements containing rows of partial differential equations had been appearing in the U.S. media, purporting to show how TM affected distant events.[20] In his book, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and The Search for Unity In Physical Law (2007), the physicist Peter Woit wrote that identification of a unified field of consciousness with a unified field of superstring theory was wishful thinking, and that "[v]irtually every theoretical physicist in the world rejects all of this as nonsense and the work of a crackpot".

Another of his academic distinctions is that he won the 1994 Ig Nobel Peace Prize.

Quote

PEACE: John Hagelin of Maharishi University and The Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy, promulgator of peaceful thoughts, for his experimental conclusion that 4,000 trained meditators caused an 18 percent decrease in violent crime in Washington, D.C.

[REFERENCE: “Interim Report: Results of the National Demonstration Project to Reduce Violent Crime and Improve Governmental Effectiveness In Washington, D.C., June 7 to July 30, 1993, Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy, Fairfield, Iowa”]

Scientist fighting crime and gravity

[Innula Zenovka]

12 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Innula, you have to be kidding right?

People have all sorts of beliefs, some that seem strange to me...but I never trash a person in their entirety because they have some beliefs I don't agree with or that don't agree with the current scientific views.

Sorry, but whatever his views on other matters, his views on dinosaurs suggest to me, a priori, that his judgement overall is somewhat questionable.

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Another of his academic distinctions is that he won the 1994 Ig Nobel Peace Prize.

Scientist fighting crime and gravity | Research | The Guardian

Pretty amazing huh.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

     Shakespeare

[Rolig Loon]

15 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Dr. Hagelin was named winner of the prestigious Kilby Award, which recognizes scientists who have made “major contributions to society through their applied research in the fields of science and technology.”

Oh, pooh.  The Kilby International Awards was an award created by the High Tech Committee of the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce, in 1990 to boost interest in the area. His other prestigious award was from the science satire magazine, Annals of Improbable Research, which "awarded" Hagelin the Ig Nobel Prize for Peace, "for his experimental conclusion that 4,000 trained meditators caused an 18 percent decrease in violent crime in Washington, D.C."

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Innula Zenovka said:

16 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Innula, you have to be kidding right?

People have all sorts of beliefs, some that seem strange to me...but I never trash a person in their entirety because they have some beliefs I don't agree with or that don't agree with the current scientific views.

Sorry, but whatever his views on other matters, his views on dinosaurs suggest to me, a priori, that his judgement overall is somewhat questionable.

Well, I have to come clean...sometimes I think as you do.  More so though when someone's views are abusive. I've ditched people's views, no matter how credentialed, when they're racist.

[Innula Zenovka]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

Scientist fighting crime and gravity | Research | The Guardian

Pretty amazing huh.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

     Shakespeare

Really quite astonishing:

Quote

Hagelin demonstrated this anti-crime technique in the summer of 1993. From 7 June to 30 July, 4,000 trained meditators meditated and levitated in or near Washington DC.

At a press conference the following year, just weeks before the presidential election, candidate Hagelin announced the results of the experiment: it was a success. While the meditators were meditating and levitating, Washington's crime rate dropped by 18%.

This was a fact. The crime rate did drop by 18%. However, the rate that dropped by 18% was not the number of crimes actually committed – in fact, during the experiment, Washington's weekly murder count hit the highest level ever recorded. The 18% drop was from Hagelin's computer prediction of what would have happened had his meditators not been meditating and levitating.

For his influence on criminals, John Hagelin was awarded the 1994 Ig Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Luna Bliss]

For Rolig....according to her elephant metaphor...

 

[Luna Bliss]

Between the Shaman and the Trickster, there’s an ancient love affair.

The law of the Shaman is reverence. Irreverence and transgression is the law of the Trickster.

The Shaman builds a Sacred space, and the Trickster urinates in it.

The Shaman calls in the directions, and the Trickster laughs hysterically.

The Shaman addresses gods, and the Trickster loosens his bowels.

The Shaman tends the fire, and the Trickster steals it.

The Shaman creates, and the Trickster destroys.

At times, the Shaman is absolutely right to hurl the Trickster from the Sacred space.

After all, of the two conditions most harmful to the Sacred, the Trickster possesses the lesser — namely, irreverence — in spades.

To protect the Sacred, the Shaman must oust the profane. Flyswatter in hand, she chases the Trickster out, restores order, leaves him smarting.

There is a second condition, however, infinitely more insidious than irreverence, that harms the Sacred. This condition is feigned reverence.

What makes feigned reverence so insidious is that it is incredibly difficult to spot. Hiding in plain sight, it wears the clothes of reverence. It sounds the same, looks the same, seems the same.

But it is not the same.

With a smile and studied earnestness, feigned reverence justifies wild cruelties and really bad behavior by invoking the same language and arguments as real reverence.

When feigned reverence rules the space, the Shaman is in trouble. The space must be destroyed. The Shaman knows this. But as Creatrix, she does not know where to begin.

At such times, she needs the aid of a Destructor.

She needs the Trickster.

[Arielle Popstar]

There are those who think the present science narratives must be the undisputed truth and those who consider historical writings to have elements of truth to them. There are plenty of other sources that mention dinosaurs coexisting with man that are neither from native traditions nor biblical ones. Remember too that before these sort of dinosaur fossils were called dinosaurs, they were known as dragons and plenty of those sort of stories around too, so really no reason why he shouldn't consider the Sioux traditions of animals fitting the descriptions of dinosaurs to be truth. The only reason scientists believe dinosaurs to be 65 million years old is because of the rocks they are found in, not the age of the bones or fossils. In fact the soft bits they are suddenly finding in many of them show to be significantly less than 100,000 years old by carbon dating so we should expect that in the next 50 years or so even mainstream science will come around to the idea that dinosaurs having coexisted with man.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

I liked that paper 

Do you have the quote from the dead sea scrolls?

Gospel of Thomas saying 29: Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders.

The way I read that is it would be a miracle of miracles for a mix of biological material to develop consciousness.

[Ceka Cianci]

Wow, I totally knew you guys were gonna say that! \o/

😲

[Bagnu]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

There are those who think the present science narratives must be the undisputed truth and those who consider historical writings to have elements of truth to them. There are plenty of other sources that mention dinosaurs coexisting with man that are neither from native traditions nor biblical ones. Remember too that before these sort of dinosaur fossils were called dinosaurs, they were known as dragons and plenty of those sort of stories around too, so really no reason why he shouldn't consider the Sioux traditions of animals fitting the descriptions of dinosaurs to be truth. The only reason scientists believe dinosaurs to be 65 million years old is because of the rocks they are found in, not the age of the bones or fossils. In fact the soft bits they are suddenly finding in many of them show to be significantly less than 100,000 years old by carbon dating so we should expect that in the next 50 years or so even mainstream science will come around to the idea that dinosaurs having coexisted with man.

Interesting concept of the dinosaurs coexisting with man. There is the possibility of dragons being based on fossils that were found by people in the past. Do you have any sources stating that "soft" bits were found. and dated?

[Ayeleeon]

On 7/5/2021 at 9:49 PM, Rolig Loon said:

That's Blaise Pascal's 17th Century argument for God, and it's a good one.  Why believe that God exists? "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists."  I like that argument.  It satisfies my own sense of the universe, and it has absolutely nothing to do with science.  Some things do not deserve to be proven.

To me, the problem with this is the implication that we make a choice as to what we believe. Yes we consider the evidence, and that evidence combined with our past experiences leads us to believe something, however I do not think we choose that belief. All of those things cause that belief dispite ourselves.

[Rolig Loon]

1 minute ago, Ayeleeon said:

On 7/5/2021 at 8:49 PM, Rolig Loon said:

That's Blaise Pascal's 17th Century argument for God, and it's a good one.  Why believe that God exists? "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists."  I like that argument.  It satisfies my own sense of the universe, and it has absolutely nothing to do with science.  Some things do not deserve to be proven.

To me, the problem with this is the implication that we make a choice as to what we believe.

Not really.  Pascal's personal decision was largely pragmatic -- less about belief than the consequences of choice.  As far as he was concerned, God might exist, or might not.  If he chose to believe that God exists, and he was correct, he would end up among the faithful and have eternal life.  On the other hand, if God doesn't exist but Pascal chose to believe anyway, he wouldn't be any worse off.  So, Pascal reasoned, he might as well believe.  Win-win, as we might say.  

From a broader perspective, Pascal is saying that people who believe in God are going to win anyway, regardless of why they believe and whether God exists.  It was a good argument for faith, as he saw it, or at least for going through the motions.  I imagine that the same argument could be made for almost anything that you believe in but have no rational basis for ( invisible elephants, faeries, ESP, or the goodness of mankind, ... ).  Given the choice, if there's no real downside, you might as well believe. 

As far as I am concerned, personally, that's a good way to look at things, but it is sort of wishy-washy. It really leaves us on neutral, relativistic ground where one person's belief is as good as another's.  Maybe that's as much as we can expect when it comes to our thoughts about religion.  When it comes to beliefs that are based at least in part on observations that can be tested, however, I don't think Pascal's argument works.  When we think we see invisible elephants, we should ask, "Really? Are there elephants there, or do I have a spot on my glasses?  Do I just wish there were elephants there?"  We should not leap to belief, but should begin with disbelief and say, "Prove it."