Masculine and Feminine Psychology

[Kevin Solway]

If remote viewing were true, the million dollar prize would have been gobbled up by now. No?

Not only that, but I believe the U.S is offering a 50 million dollar reward for information on the location of Bin Laden. If remote viewing were true then you'd expect that someone would have claimed this reward by now.

[AlyOshA]

Cory, do you define magical powers as anything that is unknown? Because I am questioning the unknown here. I am questioning the unknown because Kevin claims to know all the answers to everything. I am saying, "know magic, shun magic" and I believe I have elaborated on this in past postings. You could simply say that everything we don't know is magical and therefore either not worth knowing or a harmful endeavor, but if that were the case then why have philosophy, why have science, why have progress, why learn anything, why evolve, why grow? Your argument is incongruent with the point I am trying to make. By the way, meditation is something that every one can experience. As Buddha said don't just take my word -- experience for yourself.

[AlyOshA]

Not only that, but I believe the U.S is offering a 50 million dollar reward for information on the location of Bin Laden. If remote viewing were true then you'd expect that someone would have claimed this reward by now.

Many people do think we know exactly where Bin Laden is hiding -- Pakistan. But we can't go in there without nuclear war.

[AlyOshA]

Remote Viewing is not 100% accurate and effective just as most prescription medications are not 100 % accurate and effective. Remote Viewing has be scientifically proven to be 80 some % accurate. This means that it is not some random hocus pocus magic trick. This means that there is scientific validation of its effectiveness. I have to leave for the day and that is why this response is rushed. Hopefully you can provide some stronger points for me to refute tomorrow.

Bye Bye

Adam

[Kevin Solway]

Quote:
How was life created in our Solar system?

By cause and effect.

What cause created the effect of life

The rest of the Universe.

You can't be more specific than this without venturing into guesswork - specifically, into empirical science.

What is wisdom exactly and how are you sustaining its existence?

Wisdom is the state of being fully conscious, without delusions about the nature of reality. Anyone who is wise is automatically sustaining the existence of wisdom.

Quote:What happens after you die?


The same thing.

So are you saying that you exist when you die?

Cause and effect continue after you die just the same as it did when you were alive. The Universe doesn't miss a beat when a person dies. There's not even a blip.

If so in what form do you exist and what is this existence like?

The form you exist in is the form of the effects of your life. Whatever the effects of your life are, is what it is like.

Quote:
What is it like?

Like before you were born.

I accept this answer. But what was it like before you were born? What is this state?

Look and you will see.

How is the totality or “the all” eternal (because everything I’ve observed in the totality has a beginning and an end)?

Since the Totality contains everything, including time, it is eternal.

Things which you observe having a beginning and end are not the Totality, the All. They are only a part of it.

What created the totality?

The question is wrongly asked. Since the Totality is One without a second, by definition, it cannot have a creator. It is everything and there is nothing left over.

Quote:Can you create or destroy energy?

Depends on how you define "energy".

In the same way that Einstein defines “energy”. Einstein was quoted as saying that you cannot create or destroy energy. Do you agree with this statement?

How does Einstein define energy?

Quote: What is the nature of fate and to what extent is it predetermined?

All things are caused and therefore fully predetermined. However we can't know what is predetermined ahead of time.

So you are saying that it is impossible for human consciousness to have glimpses of the future?

Yes, we can't see the future because it hasn't happened yet.

If we could see the future then we could go to a casino and win every bet we placed.

What validation do you have that supports this claim? How do you explain intuition and presentiment (the most elementary forms of fortune telling)?

Intuition is simply the workings of the mind, partly on an unconcscious level. Anyone can predict the future, but those predictions can never be 100% certain.

Yes and what about the life force of a tree or a human.

Or a rock, or a speck of dust.

Is there a type of energy that drives these types of “organic” life forces beyond simple chemical reactions? Is there energy beyond gravity, light, magnetism?

There is nothing beyond the forces of Nature.

Do you believe in a soul?

Soul is essentially none other than character. For this reason most human beings do not have a soul - or at least have a very minimal one.

Do you believe that energy can exist on other wavelengths than what your elementary, material observations can deduce?

There is much that science has yet to discover. But whatever is discovered is just another force of Nature.

I think that a rock, a robot, and a computer are essentially unconscious; where as a human who has separated himself from his ego (or “brain identity”) is truly conscious.

We're really just a rock that has been programmed to behave in a certain way. All things are exactly this.

Do you acknowledge that the brain is only an organ like your stomach or your heart?

Certainly. It's just like the CPU of a computer or a robot.

Quote: Why is your consciousness better than tree consciousness? Would this world be a better world if trees all had your type of consciousness?

Human consciousness is better than tree consciousness if you value the survival of wisdom.

And the only wisdom you value is human consciousness?

I value all consciousness, since all consciousness promotes the survival of wisdom.

But the consciousness of a tree, and the consciousness of most people for that matter, is really minimal.

Do you think human consciousness is capable of destroying our planet?

Human lack of consciousness is destroying our planet.

It is lack of consciousness which prevents humans from being aware of the consequences of their actions, or caring about them.

Do you think our planet is in better shape since the advancement of human consciousness and the evolution of the human race (think about global warming, deforestation, and the adverse effects of nuclear technology)? In what way has human consciousness bettered the condition of our planet (as opposed to tree consciousness)?

I'm not so much interested in the condition of our planet but in the survival of wisdom.

If the ecology of the planet has to be sacrificed for the sake of the birth of consciousness, then that's a price that may have to be paid.

The birth of consciousness - which is the experience of human beings - is a very unstable condition.

Quote: How do we solve the problems in the Middle East?

Allow the problems to solve themselves.

I don’t accept this answer and somehow I don’t think that you do either.

I meant that it doesn't work to force things to happen when the conditions are not ripe. For example, the communists in Russia tried to force a communist ideology onto a people, and that didn't work. Forcing people into a democratic ideology probably won't work for the same reason.

I was referring to the validated evidence where meditation and visualization techniques from 1000s of years ago have been proven to be just as effective for Cancer treatment as any of the forms of chemotherapy and radiation treatment.

I doubt that is true for all kinds of cancer and all people.

But simple relaxation techniques can work just as well.

The body is a great healer provided it is only given a chance. Relaxation techniques allow the body to focus more of its energy towards healing itself, and this is why such techniques have an effect.

The placebo effect works in the same way. It gives people peace of mind to think they are taking a medicine (even though they aren't), which allows the body to heal itself more effectively.

Wise people are generally a proponent of “being more relaxed, contented, and physically healthy”. These characteristics go hand in hand with wisdom

They definitely do not. Out of every 1000 people who are relaxed, contented, and physically healthy, you will be lucky to find even a single one who is even slightly wise.

If you were to tell me that you were a successful practitioner and could invalidate its effectiveness because of experienced knowledge, then I would readily accept your reasoning (and this discourse would take on a whole new dynamic).

Proper meditation is the act of dropping all delusions and having an enlightened mind, free of delusions, throughout everyday life.

Traditional meditation techniques can be an aid in the very early stages, when a person's mind is too agitated to be able to even think. But once a person has a strong and relatively clear mind, then they can begin the process of real meditation. Thinking truly.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Remote Viewing is not 100% accurate and effective just as most prescription medications are not 100 % accurate and effective. Remote Viewing has be scientifically proven to be 80 some % accurate. This means that it is not some random hocus pocus magic trick. This means that there is scientific validation of its effectiveness.

I've read some research studies by various scientists and the conclusion drawn by the most serious ('least excited)' of them is that all measurements could be explained by the power of randomness and subtle psychological or statistical games (that even can fool governmental agencies - no surprise here really). There might be some ambiguous results which would justify further testing which can somehow define circumstances that exclude any possible interference or ambiguous (free to interpret) results.

Your claim about it being 'scientifically proven' is really out of thin air. The scientific consensus right now is a deeply sceptical and rejecting one - with fairly good reasons given.

[AlyOshA]

Diebert:

power of randomness and subtle psychological or statistical games (that even can fool governmental agencies - no surprise here really).

I would very much like to read the conclusions from these "serious" scientists if you would kindly forward a link. The reason I am skeptical of your skepticism is because you said "subtle psychological or statistical games" and there is absolutely no psychological or statistical aspects of the Remote Viewing method (which I have studied and can confirm from experience). The Remote Viewing method is performed in a highly controlled environment and gathers evidence by eliminating all the external variables and isolating the specific objective at hand. Anything involving imagination, psychology, or statistical reasoning is immediately eliminated or the experiment cannot continue. So I can assure you that if the scientists that you read about concluded that there are "subtle psychological and statistical games" then they haven't even bothered to research the Remote Viewing Method.

[AlyOshA]

Kevin as you elaborate your answers are becoming slightly more understandable (and actually I enjoy your insights and often agree with your sentiments) but your answers are still no less shrouded in mystery and illusiveness as any other mystical speculation would produce. Your concept of cause and effect is still too vague to answer anything of concrete substance. When you say “cause and effect” you are stating the obvious without answering the question. For instance, lets say that I asked you “how did this apple appear on my desk”? You could answer “cause and effect” and your answer would be totally correct, but you have not really answered my question. If you said “Marge just returned from the apple orchard and put an apple on your desk” then you would be accurately answering the question that I asked.

Ksolway:

You can't be more specific than this without venturing into guesswork - specifically, into empirical science.

You are correct; any other answer would be guesswork. But yet there is a concrete answer to this question, you just don’t know the answer. (Obviously I am trying to provide contrary evidence to your statements, “I can't relate to what you say about "our mind". My mind knows there are solutions, seeks those solutions, and finds them quickly. And once I know the solution I don't have to re-seek it.” … “I think I have obtained it because I understand everything.”)

Kevin:

Cause and effect continue after you die just the same as it did when you were alive. The Universe doesn't miss a beat when a person dies. There's not even a blip.

Well that’s true but you still didn’t answer the question. If I were to ask, “what is it like in a bank?” You could provide a much better description than, “Cause and effect continue after you go to a bank just the same as it did before you went to a bank”. This answer is the same:

The form you exist in is the form of the effects of your life. Whatever the effects of your life are, is what it is like.

I could ask, “what is a caterpillar like after it leaves its cocoon?” And you could answer, “The form a caterpillar exists after the cocoon is the form of the effects of the caterpillar before it was in a cocoon. Whatever the effects of the caterpillar’s life before the cocoon, is what it is like after the cocoon”. You are avoiding the question instead of logically describing a butterfly. You said that you have obtained enlightenment because you "intellectually" understand everything. Well then intellectually explain: What is the shape of our Universe? What is our Universe like and how does it function?
Or:How was life created in our solar sytem
Or: What is it like before you were born? What is it like after you die? Explain this using understandable logic without vague universal concepts or evasive reasoning. And this question is for Diebert and Cory as well (since you like to pawn everything you don't understand logically as magical).

Kevin:

Look and you will see.

Good answer. But are you saying that it is impossible for you to explain without me actually seeing?

Kevin:

The question is wrongly asked. Since the Totality is One without a second, by definition, it cannot have a creator. It is everything and there is nothing left over.

The Totality is a useful concept. But it is so horrendously vague that is means nothing. By stripping concepts down to their most fundamentally obvious conclusion, you have succeeded in describing nothing. Yes everything is everything that is obvious but not specific and not very useful.

Yes, we can't see the future because it hasn't happened yet.

If we could see the future then we could go to a casino and win every bet we placed.

No. It is not that simple and not that accurate. Ok I am going to relate a story to you. This is probably the wrong audience for such a story and it is likely that you will close your mind and prevent yourself from acknowledging anything that doesn’t fit neatly in your little worldview, but I am going to relate it regardless because it interesting on many levels. One summer, several years ago I sort of reached the peak of my meditating practices. I was meditating long hours and was achieving results unlike anything prior and since. After several hours of a moving meditation I reached a zone with the sole intent of seeing the future. Just when I reached that zone I had an image flash in my mind, the image was of an enveloping blue neon light blinding my view of a bizarre concrete architectural structure. After the meditation I immediately pawned that image off as totally fantastical bullshit that I imagined for no apparent reason. Several weeks later I was using a computer lab in the basement of a library that I had never been to previously in my life. I got a phone call on my cell phone but couldn’t get reception in the basement so I went into this strange outside concrete stairway that takes you to ground level outside (it was strange). I started talking on the cell and I was playing with my keys. I have this little flashlight on my keys and I flashed the light directly into my eyes enveloping my peripheral and distorting all details except the faint impression of the bizarre concrete structure. This image was 100% unmistakably exact to the image I had while meditating. But what I found most strange was the random insignificance of the whole thing. That stupid moment when I flashed a flashlight in my eyes had absolutely no significance. I might as well have had a psychic image of myself going to the bathroom or picking my nose, it really didn’t make a difference one way or the other. But it doesn’t change the fact that I saw it, and it was 100% unmistakably accurate. I don’t believe in predestination in the sense that Hindus believe but I still can’t explain how or why I saw an accurate image of something that had yet occur.

Kevin:

Intuition is simply the workings of the mind, partly on an unconcscious level. Anyone can predict the future, but those predictions can never be 100% certain

I agree. But if you sharpen your tools and abilities your accuracy is going to increase as well (as opposed to someone who pawns everything they don’t understand off as hocus pocus bogus, if you don’t want to see or understand something, then most likely you won’t).

Kevin:

There is nothing beyond the forces of Nature.

A true statement but undeniably vague. A mystic could argue that ghosts, aliens, and alternate dimensions are all forces of Nature. In fact everything that could ever exist (either within or beyond our perception) is a force of Nature.

Kevin:

Soul is essentially none other than character. For this reason most human beings do not have a soul - or at least have a very minimal one.

I define a soul as one individual or unique manifestation of the energy/life force that evolved from the momentum of the original energy that set all creation/manifestations/life forces in motion. This is also what Einstein defines as “energy” when he says that you cannot create or destroy energy. I am not sure what a character is by your definition. Could you please elaborate?

Kevin:

There is much that science has yet to discover. But whatever is discovered is just another force of Nature.

I repeat, your words are true in that they are incredibly vague, you aren’t actually saying anything of substance and if you are this substance is shrouded in mystery and evasiveness.

Kevin:

We're really just a rock that has been programmed to behave in a certain way. All things are exactly this.

Being specific and not obtusely universal, are a rock and a human in the same category of life energy, if so why does science distinguish a rock as being non-living whereas a human is considered living?

Kevin:

Certainly. It's just like the CPU of a computer or a robot.

If your brain is only an organ than why do you value it above and beyond everything else that exists?

Kevin:

But the consciousness of a tree, and the consciousness of most people for that matter, is really minimal.

But would it be better if tree consciousness wasn’t minimal, but instead trees were as conscious and wise as you are (I know silly question, but curious)?

Kevin:

I'm not so much interested in the condition of our planet but in the survival of wisdom.

If the ecology of the planet has to be sacrificed for the sake of the birth of consciousness, then that's a price that may have to be paid.

The birth of consciousness - which is the experience of human beings - is a very unstable condition.

This is a very interesting opinion, and I actually agree with this sentiment in some regards, but this is a far cry from an absolute truth. I will refer to Cory's argument that without a nurturing and sustaining planet, there would be no humans and without humans there would be no wisdom (by your definition).

Kevin:

I meant that it doesn't work to force things to happen when the conditions are not ripe. For example, the communists in Russia tried to force a communist ideology onto a people, and that didn't work. Forcing people into a democratic ideology probably won't work for the same reason.

I 100% agree, but whether you like it or not, America is involved in the problems of the middle east, not only did 911 occur but also we are currently occupying Iraq and we are a primary focus of the middle eastern people and therefore 100% involved. If we do nothing then they most definitely will do something. Should we allow ourselves to continue being attacked, should we just sit and wait for a nuclear attack by whomever is first in line? If so how long do you suggest that we wait, and under what circumstances should we finally decide that it is time to do something? Will your wisdom survive and outlast a nuclear war?

Kevin:

I doubt that is true for all kinds of cancer and all people.

But simple relaxation techniques can work just as well.

The body is a great healer provided it is only given a chance. Relaxation techniques allow the body to focus more of its energy towards healing itself, and this is why such techniques have an effect.

The placebo effect works in the same way. It gives people peace of mind to think they are taking a medicine (even though they aren't), which allows the body to heal itself more effectively.

Yes it has been scientifically validated that we can cure ourselves with our minds. It is also evident that a mother can lift a car to save a baby. Did you read in the news a month ago about a man hyped up on PCP who was ripping parking meters out of the concrete? The human mind is a powerful force, one that we have barely begun to fully understand, harness, and utilize to its utmost potential. My question for you, Cory, and Diebert is: what makes you think that human mind has reached the zenith of its potential/evolution and why do you disregard everything beyond currently established scientific evidence? Personally, I think it is a shame when someone cuts themselves short.

They definitely do not. Out of every 1000 people who are relaxed, contented, and physically healthy, you will be lucky to find even a single one who is even slightly wise.

That could be true but out of every 1000 people you are lucky to find one who knows how to meditate – even slightly. Also Out of 1000 wise people you will not find one who in NOT relaxed, contented, and physically healthy (or striving for, or properly maintaining physical health).

Kevin:

Proper meditation is the act of dropping all delusions and having an enlightened mind, free of delusions, throughout everyday life.

Easier said than done Kevin. I am proposing a method and you are just proposing an outcome.

Kevin:

Traditional meditation techniques can be an aid in the very early stages, when a person's mind is too agitated to be able to even think. But once a person has a strong and relatively clear mind, then they can begin the process of real meditation. Thinking truly.

I agree. But I question how much of this “real meditation” and “thinking truly” really is “real” and “true” and not just Kevin’s perception and opinion of what’s “real” and “true”.

[David Quinn]

Alyosha wrote:

A: What created the totality?

K: The question is wrongly asked. Since the Totality is One without a second, by definition, it cannot have a creator. It is everything and there is nothing left over.

A: The Totality is a useful concept. But it is so horrendously vague that is means nothing. By stripping concepts down to their most fundamentally obvious conclusion, you have succeeded in describing nothing. Yes everything is everything that is obvious but not specific and not very useful.

If it is obvious, then why are you asking what created the totality?

I always have to laugh when people describe the concept of the totality as "vague". I mean, it is impossible to imagine a concept which is more crystal-clear than this one. There isn't anything even remotely vague about it.

The main thrust of your discussion with Kevin is that he rejects the high value that you place on conventional meditation techniques, while you cannot yet see the hidden reality that he is constantly pointing to. The altered states and psychic experiences which seem to fascinate you so much hold little interest for Kevin - and for good reason, as they have little or no bearing on the subject of wisdom.

You should check out a book called, "The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga", by Paul Brunton. I think you could learn a lot from it. Brunton was a meditation practitioner for twenty odd years before realizing its limitations, and he became motivated to seek those deeper spiritual teachings which go beyond meditation. He was a rare soul who loved truth more than mystical experiences.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

Alyosha wrote,

No. It is not that simple and not that accurate. Ok I am going to relate a story to you. This is probably the wrong audience for such a story and it is likely that you will close your mind and prevent yourself from acknowledging anything that doesn’t fit neatly in your little worldview, but I am going to relate it regardless because it interesting on many levels. One summer, several years ago I sort of reached the peak of my meditating practices. I was meditating long hours and was achieving results unlike anything prior and since. After several hours of a moving meditation I reached a zone with the sole intent of seeing the future. Just when I reached that zone I had an image flash in my mind, the image was of an enveloping blue neon light blinding my view of a bizarre concrete architectural structure. After the meditation I immediately pawned that image off as totally fantastical bullshit that I imagined for no apparent reason. Several weeks later I was using a computer lab in the basement of a library that I had never been to previously in my life. I got a phone call on my cell phone but couldn’t get reception in the basement so I went into this strange outside concrete stairway that takes you to ground level outside (it was strange). I started talking on the cell and I was playing with my keys. I have this little flashlight on my keys and I flashed the light directly into my eyes enveloping my peripheral and distorting all details except the faint impression of the bizarre concrete structure. This image was 100% unmistakably exact to the image I had while meditating. But what I found most strange was the random insignificance of the whole thing. That stupid moment when I flashed a flashlight in my eyes had absolutely no significance. I might as well have had a psychic image of myself going to the bathroom or picking my nose, it really didn’t make a difference one way or the other. But it doesn’t change the fact that I saw it, and it was 100% unmistakably accurate. I don’t believe in predestination in the sense that Hindus believe but I still can’t explain how or why I saw an accurate image of something that had yet occur.

I actually believe you. I had a similar sort of experience. The only difference is that I had no interest in experiencing the future before it arrived. Every night before I go to sleep I watch my thoughts carefully. One night, suddenly the face of a girl broke out of the black. I recognized the girl. It was someone I hadnt seen in 14 years, someone who I never talked to, never had any sort of relationship with. I found her sexually attractive in junior high, but she moved away in grade 7 and I never seen her again. Well, until that night.

The next day at the grocery store I glanced at the cashier who was working accross from the one who was serving me.

It was that girl. I even read her name tag.

So your right, these strange experiences seem totally random, they are without significance or usefullness.

I also had an experience once where I woke up out of a deep sleep to the flashing and strangly archetypal image of a sickle, when I opened my eyes there was a pitch black shadow man hovering above me and then away from me, dissapearing into the wall.

another time I woke up to the image of a womans face and when I open my eyes her figure was over me and also drifted away dissapearing into the wall. (I seen her twice actually)

I've had moments in my sleep where I feel I have been uncomfortably ripped out of my physical body and I float around awkwardly and tensely in my room before falling down into what seems like an endless abyss and then I wake up.

Such an expeience is totally different from the more lucid dreams I've had where I have taken flight peter pan style.

The few dreams that I've had flying are are not the uncomfortable, tingly sensations that seem to occur when I feel that I am being involuntarily pulled out of my body.

I wouldnt even call those experiences dreams. They are either some sort of neurological screw-up rooted in a pathological self-hatred, or maybe they really do have something to do with the proccess of developing an astral body -- or maybe there is another explaination.

It's been a long time since I've had lucid dreams or experiences of being pulled from my body.

Ever since I became more concerned with being logical, educated and well-informed, strange experiences seem to have almost completely ceased. I'm sure if I researched and thought about having weird experiences, I would have them again.

[Kevin Solway]

If you said “Marge just returned from the apple orchard and put an apple on your desk” then you would be accurately answering the question that I asked.

If I answered in such a manner it would only be speculation. Even if I saw Marge put the apple on your desk it would still be speculation, because what I saw might not have actually happened.

I only answer what I know with certainty to be true.

You could provide a much better description than, “Cause and effect continue . . .

Ok, after you die it's like being in unconscious sleep, except you're never going to wake up.

You are avoiding the question instead of logically describing a butterfly.

While caterpillars generally turn into butterflies (or moths) it's not so straightforward with what people turn into when they die.

You could say they turn into fertilizer, or into ashes, depending on whether they are buried or cremated. But that's not the full story. The effects of a person's life range a lot further than that.

What is the shape of our Universe?

Once again the question is wrongly asked. Since the Universe is the Totality, the All, it cannot logically have a shape. Shapes only exist relative to something else. But there is nothing else.

What is our Universe like and how does it function?

You have to be clear about what the Universe is before you can ask such questions.

Or:How was life created in our solar sytem

Life may not have been created in our solar system. It may have arrived here as bacteria on meteorites. Nobody knows for sure.

Look and you will see.

Good answer. But are you saying that it is impossible for you to explain without me actually seeing?

Absolutely. I can't explain to you that A=A or 1 + 1 = 2 unless you work it out for yourself.

The Totality is a useful concept. But it is so horrendously vague that is means nothing.

There's nothing vague about "The Totality is everything, with nothing left over. It is the All."

There's no room there for any kind of misinterpretation or vagueness.

I still can’t explain how or why I saw an accurate image of something that had yet occur.

If you want to prove that you can see the future, you'll need a lot better evidence than that.

Soul is essentially none other than character. For this reason most human beings do not have a soul - or at least have a very minimal one.

I am not sure what a character is by your definition. Could you please elaborate?

Character is closely tied with genius. Weininger describes it at length in his book "Sex and Character".

Character is also individuality - the ability to do what one thinks is right regardless of what anyone else thinks. It has the ability to go against the grain and to swim against the tide as if they weren't even there.

We're really just a rock that has been programmed to behave in a certain way. All things are exactly this.

Being specific and not obtusely universal, are a rock and a human in the same category of life energy, if so why does science distinguish a rock as being non-living whereas a human is considered living?

Humans are considered to be living because we have a means of reproduction.

But the boundary between living and non-living is extremely blurred. There are kinds of clay, and crystals that arguably have the ability to reproduce.

Certainly. It's just like the CPU of a computer or a robot.

If your brain is only an organ than why do you value it above and beyond everything else that exists?

I've never said that I value the brain. I value wisdom.

But would it be better if tree consciousness wasn’t minimal, but instead trees were as conscious and wise as you are (I know silly question, but curious)?

It certainly wouldn't hurt.

without a nurturing and sustaining planet, there would be no humans and without humans there would be no wisdom (by your definition).

When this planet becomes exhausted (which will be soon) we will have to move to another one, quick smart.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The Remote Viewing method is performed in a highly controlled environment and gathers evidence by eliminating all the external variables and isolating the specific objective at hand.

Well, that's what you have assumed perhaps. I've seen good arguments that render a lot of this 'research' useless as evidence for any specific phenomenon.

Not sure how far you want to take this but I find the comments of Ray Hyman quite good in general. One main problem is the lack of 'positive theory' that really limits the kind of meaningful tests one can perform. Demonstrating a statistical deviation is no 'evidence' yet for anything paranormal. It's only evidence of some unknown effect and only many follow-up trials could lead somewhere, all done by different people because if the same people work with each other over and over again, who knows what non-verbal messaging could take place.

For example: exterminating 'all external variables' is immensely difficult by even the greatest scientists, especially when nobody really knows yet what is being measured in the first place! This extermination is something that can only gradually over time develop by participation of many more scientists and researchers, step by step.

I hope you don't interpret this as 'my stance' on remote viewing. It's only my stance on any 'scientific evidence' that has so far propped up and is sometimes used to convince people to accept some idea involving PSI-powers.

[AlyOshA]

I will have to take these responses one by one because there is so much useful info in them.

David Quinn:

I always have to laugh when people describe the concept of the totality as "vague". I mean, it is impossible to imagine a concept which is more crystal-clear than this one. There isn't anything even remotely vague about it.

By vague I mean that it is a given and that it doesn’t provide any substantial description that is useful. A useful description would be the speculation of Lee Smolin in describing our universe as a reproduction of interconnected black holes. Or the recent work by that Russian hermit who mathematically solved a boggling equation where he was able to turn a donut shape into a sphere without tearing it. And then there is the classic description that miniscule molecules are universes and our universe is just a miniscule molecule in another universe. These are useful models of description. But because they are specific (and NOT VAGUE) they are subjective to criticism and contrary evidence. You and Kevin have found a way to be totally correct by saying the most basic given, in which case you are really saying nothing. So what created everything? You can’t create everything because everything is everything. So what is eternal? Everything is eternal. I think a useful description of the eternal is the void and a useful description of the void is the bellows. Laughing at me doesn’t make it any less vague David. I am sure that an Islamic fundamentalist and a Southern Baptist Christian would both agree that the totality is everything and everything is everything and there can’t be anything beyond everything -- but so what. A=A but A is not B. At some point you need to go beyond the universal and the vague and start describing the specific.

The main thrust of your discussion with Kevin is that he rejects the high value that you place on conventional meditation techniques, while you cannot yet see the hidden reality that he is constantly pointing to. The altered states and psychic experiences which seem to fascinate you so much hold little interest for Kevin - and for good reason, as they have little or no bearing on the subject of wisdom.

I value truth David. I also value those who constantly seek truth. But the main thrust of my discussion with Kevin was not the value of conventional meditation techniques (although I credit you for attempting a psychoanalysis of my motivation). The main criticism (and reason for my 20 questions) is because Kevin said, “I can't relate to what you say about "our mind". My mind knows there are solutions, seeks those solutions, and finds them quickly” … “I think I have obtained it because I understand everything”.
I am hugely critical of anyone who claims to know all the answers to everything and claims these “opinions” to be absolute truths (especially in regard to the unknown). I don’t criticize those who humbly pursue wisdom. I criticize those who already claim to be wise (and any wise man would acknowledge criticism to be absolutely necessary). So yes when someone claims to find enlightenment by intellectually solving a problem – then that person should be able to accurately and thoroughly articulate this solution with sound reason.

You should check out a book called, "The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga", by Paul Brunton. I think you could learn a lot from it. Brunton was a meditation practitioner for twenty odd years before realizing its limitations, and he became motivated to seek those deeper spiritual teachings which go beyond meditation. He was a rare soul who loved truth more than mystical experiences.

Thank you for the recommendation. I will check it out. It’s too bad we can’t bring Paul Brunton into this discourse – no? I use the techniques that Kevin describes (or at least my own version of them) and I am not criticizing those techniques, I am criticizing people who disregard other techniques when they lack sufficient understanding and experience with those techniques. The practical goal of Taoism to utilize, understand, and acknowledge as many different approaches and techniques that you possibly can. The ever changing and diverse spectrum of existence requires many, many different tools (something that I have been saying since day one). I have never heard of Paul Brunton but I am curious to find out why he disregards his former 20 years of dedication and training. I think that there are undoubtedly deeper understandings that go beyond meditation, but I wonder how easy it is to obtain these deeper understandings without the 20 odd years of meditating and pursuing.

[David Quinn]

Alyosha,

DQ: I always have to laugh when people describe the concept of the totality as "vague". I mean, it is impossible to imagine a concept which is more crystal-clear than this one. There isn't anything even remotely vague about it.

A: By vague I mean that it is a given and that it doesn’t provide any substantial description that is useful.

It resolves the issue of the Universe's origins, eliminates God as a meaningful concept, points to the formlessness of the Whole, and articulates the fundamental nature of all things. And you call this useless!?

A useful description would be the speculation of Lee Smolin in describing our universe as a reproduction of interconnected black holes.

I'm sorry, but that is kid's stuff. Formulating speculative theories about events occurring within the Totality does not even begin to touch the real philosophic issues at hand.

Or the recent work by that Russian hermit who mathematically solved a boggling equation where he was able to turn a donut shape into a sphere without tearing it. And then there is the classic description that miniscule molecules are universes and our universe is just a miniscule molecule in another universe. These are useful models of description. But because they are specific (and NOT VAGUE) they are subjective to criticism and contrary evidence.

The concept of the Totality is just as open to scrutiny, criticism and contrary evidence as any other theory. But the difference in this case is that the court of evidence is purely logical in nature, rather than empirical. In other words, the concept is constantly tested in the laboratory of logic and passes with flying colours every time.

You and Kevin have found a way to be totally correct by saying the most basic given, in which case you are really saying nothing.

Alas, your vision is being obscured by mental blocks.

So what created everything? You can’t create everything because everything is everything. So what is eternal? Everything is eternal. I think a useful description of the eternal is the void and a useful description of the void is the bellows. Laughing at me doesn’t make it any less vague David. I am sure that an Islamic fundamentalist and a Southern Baptist Christian would both agree that the totality is everything and everything is everything and there can’t be anything beyond everything -- but so what.

If they did truly understand the Totality - understand it specifically and non-vaguely - then there is no way they could continue being Southern Baptists or Islamic fundamentalists.

A=A but A is not B. At some point you need to go beyond the universal and the vague and start describing the specific.

You mean, stop being a philosopher and start doing science?

Some people try to peep at the heavens through a tube, or aim at the earth with an awl. These implements are too small for the purpose. You will find many like this.

- Chuang Tzu

DQ: The main thrust of your discussion with Kevin is that he rejects the high value that you place on conventional meditation techniques, while you cannot yet see the hidden reality that he is constantly pointing to. The altered states and psychic experiences which seem to fascinate you so much hold little interest for Kevin - and for good reason, as they have little or no bearing on the subject of wisdom.

A: I value truth David.

If your above comments are any guide, you value speculative theorizing, not truth.

I also value those who constantly seek truth. But the main thrust of my discussion with Kevin was not the value of conventional meditation techniques (although I credit you for attempting a psychoanalysis of my motivation). The main criticism (and reason for my 20 questions) is because Kevin said, “I can't relate to what you say about "our mind". My mind knows there are solutions, seeks those solutions, and finds them quickly” … “I think I have obtained it because I understand everything”.
I am hugely critical of anyone who claims to know all the answers to everything and claims these “opinions” to be absolute truths (especially in regard to the unknown). I don’t criticize those who humbly pursue wisdom. I criticize those who already claim to be wise (and any wise man would acknowledge criticism to be absolutely necessary). So yes when someone claims to find enlightenment by intellectually solving a problem – then that person should be able to accurately and thoroughly articulate this solution with sound reason.

Which is what Kevin has been doing. His answers have been crystal clear, to the point, and reflective of the Source. He is not to blame if people lock themselves within the empirical/mystical mindset and cannot perceive reality with any clarity.

DQ: You should check out a book called, "The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga", by Paul Brunton. I think you could learn a lot from it. Brunton was a meditation practitioner for twenty odd years before realizing its limitations, and he became motivated to seek those deeper spiritual teachings which go beyond meditation. He was a rare soul who loved truth more than mystical experiences.

A: Thank you for the recommendation. I will check it out. It’s too bad we can’t bring Paul Brunton into this discourse – no?

He's dead, unfortunately. But that book in particular will help you appreciate the limited nature of empirical theorizing and the transcendental nature of pure logic - as will reading and participating in this forum.

I use the techniques that Kevin describes (or at least my own version of them) and I am not criticizing those techniques, I am criticizing people who disregard other techniques when they lack sufficient understanding and experience with those techniques. The practical goal of Taoism to utilize, understand, and acknowledge as many different approaches and techniques that you possibly can.

Lao Tzu stated that the greatest virtue was "to follow the Tao and the Tao alone". This means working out what the Tao is and then giving your whole being over to it. All this other stuff - sitting in meditation, seeking psychic and mystical experiences, developing other tools, predicting the future, etc - is just a side-show, a distraction for the ego.

You either dive straight into the heart of Reality, or you potter about the edges chasing irrelevant attainments - that's the choice. No prizes for guessing which is the more popular.

The ever changing and diverse spectrum of existence requires many, many different tools (something that I have been saying since day one).

How many different ways are there to drop a poisonous snake?

Just drop all of your delusions and dive straight into the heart of Reality. What are you waiting for?

I have never heard of Paul Brunton but I am curious to find out why he disregards his former 20 years of dedication and training.

It was for the same reason that the Buddha abandoned six years of of ascetism and meditation, and finally decided to use his noggin instead.

I think that there are undoubtedly deeper understandings that go beyond meditation, but I wonder how easy it is to obtain these deeper understandings without the 20 odd years of meditating and pursuing.

There's only one way to find out.

-

[tooyi]

Alyosha,

Just to note...

The russian hermit didn't turn a donut into a sphere. What he did was take any crumpled sphere tied into knots. He opened and ironed all of them back to smooth ones (Monk head smooth). He didn't invent the idea. He was the one who could show that it can be done without problems (singularities). All donuts would then look alike. So would all spheres, respectively. You could make a donut out of a sphere but not without using a knot. Sometimes it may be hard to tell whether something is a real donut or whether it is just something simpler in a knot. You can always pry those knots loose though, apparently. If you can tie it, you can pry it. Who would've thunk, huh? Makes recognition of things a lot easier. That's all.