Birch

" You might think that the mind is something locked away privately in your skull. I don't think that way at all." Yes I'd figured your concept of mind had to involve "non-locality" in some form or another. So what you're saying is the intent of TaoMeow coincided with the intent of some other people and brought the respective objects of intent (getting rid of a car vs. acquiring one) together at the "right" point for all concerned? Digging into "non-locality". I'd like to understand it better. There could be "fake" non-locality (as in the example of mirror-neurons). I'm guessing you'd say that in practice it doesn't matter. I suspect it does matter, quite some. The other thing you said somewhere (I think on this thread) was that mind pre-empts body and body catches up. I have experience that the reverse is also the case. The ole "jing, qi, shen' thing? Is "shen,qi, jing" ever mentioned? I haven't seen it so far. And I figure that might have quite a lot to do with this magic stuff.

" He ended up becoming an initiate, practitioner, and possibly priest of voodoo. " So that's what it was. Did I mention he and Narby are over at Reality Sandwich doing an online course in shamanistic stuff? I think it was quite expensive.

Hey Steve F. Thanks for the reply. See, here's yet another reason (for me) to spend some time on TTB's. Still. I have a question about "It is assumed that everyone recognizes...". While the assumption seems sensible, what happens if it turns out that not everyone recognizes... (and the "why" they don't is yet another question)? In other words if one were to take the time to explain to people every time what the "scientific method" involves and implies, what consequences would those discussions (because I guess there might be some kickback) have? And why the "assumption" that "everyone recognizes..." in the first place? Before anyone asks me what point I'm trying to make, I ought to admit that I'm not trying to make any in particular. I'm interested in understanding why a very precise method would allow what seems like nebulous conceptual edges around itself.

I have a problem to submit to the bums. I guess it gets mixed up with this inner/outer thing. My current experience is of other people noticing a state (fleeting) I'm in and pointing it out and asking for a justification much later after. When I don't want to give one, they get annoyed. Mind, I'm not harsh when I refuse. I thank them for caring about it. But it really really annoys me. I have to force politeness on this one. And then that pisses me off as well The reason I don't want to give justification is because I don't think it's worth it in most cases. A "pick your battles" kind of thing. But this seems to be unsatisfactory to the other person who will: - serve me up an "attitude" that can last for days after. So for every one of my fleeting "moments" that get pointed out, I get served up a dish of the sulks and curt replies - not miss the next opportunity to ask me for justification on the same (fleeting) state I don't know what to do with it. I just know that I'm having a real hard time with it. I mean it seems nice that someone should ask how you feel but I just don't see it that way. The way I see it is they're asking so they can show me how unjustified I am in feeling that way. And indeed this has been my previous experience with people who do ask me "what's up". What do I do with it? It's gotten to the point where I can't be at ease around the person who's "doing" it. Not helpful because I have to be (work). Thanks for all suggestions!

I don't know. Years ago after reading a bunch of Casteneda I had a dream/night experience where something dark flew into my gut and then took "something" from it and went off with it. But I shrugged and figured whatever "it" was, they could have it if they wanted it. I tend not to think about this sort of thing too much as it fries my brain (aside from being scary). I guess I'm more concerned with human-world things. Which are complicated enough if you ask me

Steve F, your head should be ballooning right about now Great post! i have some questions about it. 1) If this is the case, why does "scientific" reporting continue on what seems (to me anyway) to be the old school "true objectivity" paradigm? Even if the effect is "very small", shouldn't it be mentioned consistently? I don't think one can expect non-scientists to include that caveat every time they see a published result (if they ever see any, I figure they see articles and opinions about results and nothing else) 2) Can one distinguish the "science" from the "scientists"? If cash is involved (or reputation, or advancement etc) then how much of that would play into the scientists' application of the scientific method? Could scientists unwittingly be designing experiments with very specific blinkers (as Apech put it) on? If those blinkers have dollar signs painted on the front, does it make this effect stronger? 3) I'm interested in ritual in science - but that's maybe just me

But do they actually feel right? I'd argue the reverse...but if you haven't allowed yourself to flip the switch then it just looks impossible (IMO/IME) BTW, I wouldn't worry about it too much as it's the biggest lie we've ever been told And you're not alone in believing it.

I plus-oned you on this one, but do you realise how incredibly what you wrote was? I would say more, but I censure myself

Yup, my immediate take also.

Hey, where'd you get to ? I don't think there's a bunch of them. I think I'm just bad at all kinds of things.

Alright, I'll concede there's a point where this is the case (IME). The A44holery I was referring to was the choice of a specific person who knows what that brings. NOT because he/she is attempting to "enlighten" anyone else. The latter is exactly the point I'm trying to make. You can't enlighten people. People will or will not wake up. Suggesting aggression is a choice is IMO/IME pretty darn misguided. Edit: I've been considering this some more and I wonder if aggression might be something to keep people asleep...

"I'm a taoist and therefore I don't believe that "spirit" and "matter" are different things, only different phases of the same cosmic qi-process (in other words, spirit is matter, energy is an attribute of both, and there's no clear-cut cut-off lines anywhere, body IS mind, not a container for the mind but mind itself, while mind IS body, not a filler for the body but body itself... and so on. Dualism is not the problem, it's a manifestation of the process, basically the source of energy... this, for another topic though.)" About time for that topic

Far too many ideas to begin very well. But "will" most likely comes into things. "Randomness" implies to me that there is none. If everything in the universe has a "will" of some kind (whether that be to live, die, procreate, destroy, imagine, to do/be whatever - I guess that is "path" of each of the "10,000 things") and all of those feed back into each other... I get a sense of it sometimes and then, nope, lost it....

"Why else do I post on this forum and then check to see who has commented on..." Yes! Why else? I have a few "why elses" - that I've sometimes mentioned in a bit of a "group-huggy" fashion but I'm actually quite serious about some of it.

Well, technically, you're still here I can't remember what you're talking about exactly but I sort of remember something along those lines. Now I don't know what to say.

"People who choose to sit in chaos also like to create chaos around them." Why? Do you reckon they are doing this consciously? I've met some that seem to, but I'm not sure. It's hard for me to admit that a person wants to. But easy enough for me to admit to wanting all kinds of other things so I guess I have to allow them that choice as well.

"As I said, this is a tough one for me, as well. I wish you the best, in finding a balance that works for you." Thank you Otis. That sounds nice. Or it "should" I dunno. My present notion of "balance" is leaning waaaaay over to "my" side of the shenanigans. I can't say why exactly that's a good place for it, but it feels much better, more "right" than the previous setting which was more what Steve F was on about. Pleasing people is a very mysterious undertaking IMO/IME. I've tried most my life and got it wrong most of the time. So why not try something else? I'm convinced "balance" will take care of itself. But I might be wrong...

ruh-roh Righto, this probably has to be the very worst offense (IMO/IME and I'm sticking to it) the "spiritually grandiose". The "us" vs "them" and the "holier than thou". Man, if you're *here* then get you off to somewhere else where this will not be tolerated :-) Oh wait, you're already on your way. May the road rise up beneath you mate I'm only saying that, you're completely allowed to be an a44hole if you want to (liberated as such is what I mean ;-) I'm not saying that to appease anyone at all).

IF what you're dealing with is "heartbreak" rather than a third-chakra kind of deal...not that one is "better" than the other IME. Where's our friend Dmatt? He's pretty good at this stuff.

Good question. Given it's not a "thing" IMO/IME but a "structure". I think you can alter its structure.

Otis, I strongly approve of your approval

Oh no! I LIKED it. Amazingly I was still wondering whether I should "work on it" for others - now you've managed to convince me it's the most self-benefitting thing ever. Very good remarks! Glad you didn't delete - but then you don't care about my approval anyway, right? (I threw in the last "right" on purpose )

If you really want to.

Because "knowledge is power" ?

"You will still be you, answer to your name, eat your porridge and pay your bills. The thoughts will be there, the feelings and senses will still be there as well as the beliefs you held before you realize 'No self' [except that one belief in being a particular entity/self]." See, the first part of that is just nasty. IMO. I'd call that first part, i.e. ""You will still be you, answer to your name, eat your porridge and pay your bills. The thoughts will be there, the feelings and senses will still be there as well as the beliefs you held before you realize" = the part that I reckon so many people balk at that they go back to eating porridge and paying bills - probably...Which is why IMO Bhuddism does so well as a state religion in many parts of the world. Did I mention the stripping of shamanism? Still, IMO the redeeeming part of it "except that one belief in being a particular entity/self]." is the one that IMO/IME is the point of realisation of false self. Doesn't mean that "true self" is necessarily realized at the same time IMO (and so far IME). But at least the "false self" is seen for its construct which then leave you with...?