Birch

Kundalini people think of themselves as victims? Where did that come from?

Hmmm, any 'secret society' restricting itself to one gender or with distinct 'sections' for men and women doesn't get my 'ooooh I'd love to join that' wish.

'Rational reasons' is a fun topic:-) As are 'Man flu' and 'Mansplaining':-)

I don't know any Freemasons but they're easily findable on the internet. I was thinking about joining but then I read the 'god' part on their website and balked. How about joining a society for critical thinking? Skeptics etc? I'd be wanting to test out all that cool new intellectual gear before I claimed anything. Only way to do that is to put yourself in competition with people who are better.

Saturday was a 'big f*cked up' day. You can check the almanac:-)

That's not the explanation I read.

There's that but IME there's also other 'stuff'. For example, my 5E Bazi is so full of water that unless I increase wood in some way, the drive and energy to get to the 'getting stuff done' part just doesn't follow. Or it feels like a slog and very unpleasant.

The table-tilting thing has an interesting explanation in that 'Paranormality' book I read. As does the 'hidden object' thing:-)

Something in this thread I can a) understand agree with in the above post. I'm definitely in that 'middle' situation at present. I'm also (apparently) in Sade Sati and Death and Emptiness 'phases' according to the various astrological techniques I've been playing with. Both of them seem to end at around the same time. And they both seem to be more or less about the same issues (please correct me if I haven't got it correct). Not to get back to questions of determinism and free will but to get back to them, what role do you see both playing in the 'Law of Attraction'?

The Chinese are not just buying swathes of Africa. Agricultural land is also up for grabs elsewhere, apparently.

Yeah, that's what my dad told me:-)

Just had à vision of Mr GranP in a floral pinny. Shamanism, of course:-)

Evil children?? I thought children were supposed to rebel and question their parents BS (belief systems).

Oh I wasn't saying they were GranP:-)

Thanks Mr GranP. First link I fell over was especially interesting (should probably post it in the science thread too:-) http://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/what-time-do-you-want-it-to-be-part-two/)

I'd say we're in more of an Orwellian setup at present. I'm fed up of the apocalyptic crap.

Sounds good. Would you apply that to the 'conditioning process' as well Mr GranP?

Forestofemptiness. I'm no longer sure whether this issue of dynamic and changing vs static can be attributed to a shortcoming on the part of scientists themselves, the way they present things, the way other people present their work or something else. I know I'm sounding very 'pro-science' at this juncture (and probably 'Marxist' for some :-p) but I'm presently convinced 'something's wrong' with science. I have a feeling it's behaving (or being behaved, given it's people doing it) more like a faith-based 'something' than it was before. Is it just me?

I get this idea too but I was under the impression they had found a way of getting around that issue. Short of just saying 'well it doesn't matter' of course. Maybe A Seeker would be kind enough to talk about it on Monday? Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Yes yes!

Well, as I mentioned before I don't think that Popper was a Marxist (seems he was a critic which is why the Marxists would have his stuff). Yes I suppose asking opinions from non-practicing anyones is bound to be hit and miss but I reckon as long as the folks asked can state where they derive their opinions from it's fine by me (maybe I shouldn't do that though?) Would appreciate more from you than less:-)

It's an interesting post Gerard but I'm not sure how it relates to the Popper article I posted above. Could you explain? What I meant about the 'Taoist' difference was about uncertainty. I'm finding it hard to articulate but it seems like the article suggests that science implies uncertainty which to me is a bit strange. Is the activity of science creating actual uncertainty as a fact of reality? Is it creating an illusion of uncertainty by its activity?

Hey Aaron, I don't know much but your remark on 'very few friends' was a bit of a 'zinger'. Don't you think it's possible to disagree with someone and still remain on good terms? Maybe not. Anyway, I did want to chime in about 'vehicles' because while I don't agree with the exoteric aspects of most of them (in other words the 'stuff' that gets taken for truth but is just a pointy hat) I consider that without them being there it can be more difficult to 'pick oneself up by one's bootstraps' as someone else once said. The reasons for this are (to me) commented on in the TTC.

Righto Mr GranP. One of the more interesting points made in the article is that changing a name does not change a fact (or if I've understood correctly, it ought not to) Edit: Not to insist on this point, but to insist on this point (name changing does not = fact changing), I found it very close to some practice-induced thoughts/experiences. Like religion, there's (IMO) the pointy-hat version of science and the actual what it means stuff (check out the part of the article on uncertainty). I loved the part about the scientists not understanding the theory named after them. Also remarked upon this insistence on uncertainty. That sort of doesn't fit with the Taoist ideas I have been studying but I'll ponder that some other time. The subject I want to stick on is why is there such a 'science vs' thing going on right now when, if you read the article and to the point made by Humble, it's 'just' a way of discovering things?

Should we? Rob, I'm looking for a discussion following the Popper article I posted on the other thread. Care to weigh in?