Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 ombhurbhuva wrote: > Lewis wrote: > What actually is an event if we admit > that > >>a selection of contemporary occurences > > are > >>not causally connected? > > > There would be no understandable events or > events as they are conceived. > Just random happenings, this and that. > > > Hi Lewis, > First Law of Coincidence:------- If no > contemporary event is causally connected > then all contemporary events are > coincidental. > > That seems true but is it a paradox i.e. > correct reasoning that leads to a > conclusion we are reluctant to give assent > to. Jack meets Jill: a coincidence but > not 'what a coincidence' because they > both like free range eggs and country > butter and they're in the market. Voila! > > So what are the roots of coincidence? > Here's a story which I caught last night > on the local Gaelic channel. Eddy > Linehan the folklorist and storyteller is > on his way down the road near Limerick > where major roadworks are going on. He > sees that the motorway is going through > the Fairy Thorn which is one of the great > markers of the path of the hosts of the > Shee. Extraction of this thorn tree would > bring bad luck to everyone both motorists > and digger driver. He gets on to the > local radio, Clare FM, and talks about it. > Heap bad ju ju, baraka al keff keff > kefach. A reporter from a national radio > current affairs show happens to be > listening and they feature it. A > reporter from New York is listening to > that show. He writes it up. From there a > Belgian magazine gets to know about it. > Before long Clare County Council is > getting a lot of enquiries about the > threatened thorn. After consultations > with the road designer they landscape the > motorway around this tree. So there it is > today in its enclosure its branches > festooned with favour rags. > Here, Mike you have made selections in a sequence of time. Coincidence as exemplified is not a paradox. It is simply you juxtaposing events in time. In anthropology we do the same story making. As a graduate student, I did regression analysis for a professor who firmly believed that the advent of Christianity in Zambia had profound economic effects on household heads in remote rural villages who believed or belonged to one of several Christian denominations. He gave me his data and asked me to run a statistical analysis on it with an eye towards finding correlations between religion and maize production. There was no correlation whatsoever given the data. He could not accept it. It was his experience that religion had something to do with it a la Max Weber of whom he was a fan. So I told him that the significant non-agricultural event (seed type, soil fertility, fertilizer, acreage, farming skill, etc.) in the data facts points to tin roofs and that these are an exceptionally clear and better predictor of maize production than religion or the agricultural factors. He said he could not write about that. I asked him why not after all tin roofs clearly predicted greater maize production. The correlation was nearly .90 and the regression analysis supported the correlation after accounting for all covariances in the relevant variables inputted. So the coincidence of the appearance and existence of tin roofs signaled greater annual maize production over a number of years. This worked. He did not like it. It offended his sensibilities and he worried that it would make him a laughingstock if he wrote about. Later, I poked him by saying that his data was insufficient and that that is the reason why he did not find his expected finding. So, I made the explanation more appetizing by selectively demonstrating the correlations between tin roof and fertilizer, fertilizer and cash income, cash income and civil service jobs, civil service jobs and education, education and English language learning and religious affiliation, so that he could make the story that Christian beliefs increased maize production of those households over non- Christian ones. He liked that. His data did not directly support this in any way whatsoever. I just made it up. As you made up yours. There is no reluctance necessary for anyone, Michael, unless there is timidity. These are stories and beliefs that satisfy some use, whatever that may be. It is selective and made up. The whole of jnana yoga, Advaita Vedanta, Monism, spiritual or material, Monotheism, Pantheism, Panenthesim, Atheism, Buddhism, Science in all its forms are all, all made up and used for whatever the use is served and there are many usefully served. > So: Second Law of Coincidence ----All > lokas are not contemporary so > simultaneous causal efficacy is not > impeded. > > Ramana discussed how you could be the > reincarnation of someone who had not died > yet! > > Predestination: You shall have already > been saved; > or not, as the case may be. > Michael. These are beliefs, stories. And they can be construed in any way whatsoever. They mean only what is put into them. I could be the reincarnation of my great, great, great, great, great, granddaughter. I can believe it and be happy or not. There is no reason not to believe it or to believe it, and there is no way to prove or disprove it, if there is any concern with that. Ultimately all beliefs have no particular meaning other than that given by the believer and what they can be used for in life and the value placed on them is simply preferential, it works well or it does not. The presence of a tin roofs as a predictors of maize production for several villages was indisputable on the surface by using the data well analyzed with better than the standard procedures used in anthropology, but it was not satisfying as an explanation for that professor and most likely his readers. Something more relevant, something that would fit into the ontologies proffered and reiterated in anthropology was sought to make their world go round or to prop it up, or whatever the case may be. These stories and beliefs, that is, every single thing written in this place, are no more than that. All serve the purveyors and some serve the receivers. Is this not understood? Whatever comes in language and concept is a story, a belief, a representation taken in as many ways as there are other beliefs and stories and representations that differ. So one storyteller disagrees with another storyteller in all the many ways that is done. What else could there be? Story telling is fun and interesting and one experiences many things. The story that all is stories and beliefs is a story, is it not? Whose story is best? I have not the faintest of an idea, for it does not matter. What matters has not been much of a subject of discussion here. Timidity rules here in that. ****************************** Hi Lewis, It's not the same as your Zambian story at all. There you were looking out of a range of facts for a plausible correlation with an established fact. What was the common set of factors in all the instances of successful husbandry? You would be looking for some syndrome, were there any salient factors etc right? In the thorn tree case the lines of force are clear and unambiguous and even commonplace. Whether you choose to accept the power of the shee or the Holy Spirit is entirely up to you. The extraordinary thing about the stories and beliefs is how much fundamentally they have in common. A lot of people get by without religion. Others find that the world is a more mysterious place than they imagined and this is continually confirmed through their experience and the deepening of their faith. They don't claim this in order to give meaning to their world or to trump materialists; their world gets its meaning through a force which is extrapersonal by whatever name you call it. Have you prematurely closed your account with reality? Your story is essentially a self referential one and is therefore closed in on itself. You need an innoculation of doubt. Try the affirmation 'Everything I know is wrong' Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > ombhurbhuva wrote: > > Lewis wrote: > > What actually is an event if we admit > > that > > > >>a selection of contemporary occurences > > > > are > > > >>not causally connected? > > > > > > There would be no understandable events > or > > events as they are conceived. > > Just random happenings, this and that. > > > > > > Hi Lewis, > > First Law of Coincidence:------- If no > > contemporary event is causally connected > > then all contemporary events are > > coincidental. > > > > That seems true but is it a paradox i.e. > > correct reasoning that leads to a > > conclusion we are reluctant to give > assent > > to. Jack meets Jill: a coincidence but > > not 'what a coincidence' because they > > both like free range eggs and country > > butter and they're in the market. Voila! > > > > So what are the roots of coincidence? > > Here's a story which I caught last night > > on the local Gaelic channel. Eddy > > Linehan the folklorist and storyteller > is > > on his way down the road near Limerick > > where major roadworks are going on. He > > sees that the motorway is going through > > the Fairy Thorn which is one of the > great > > markers of the path of the hosts of the > > Shee. Extraction of this thorn tree > would > > bring bad luck to everyone both > motorists > > and digger driver. He gets on to the > > local radio, Clare FM, and talks about > it. > > Heap bad ju ju, baraka al keff keff > > kefach. A reporter from a national radio > > current affairs show happens to be > > listening and they feature it. A > > reporter from New York is listening to > > that show. He writes it up. From there a > > Belgian magazine gets to know about it. > > Before long Clare County Council is > > getting a lot of enquiries about the > > threatened thorn. After consultations > > with the road designer they landscape > the > > motorway around this tree. So there it > is > > today in its enclosure its branches > > festooned with favour rags. > > > > Here, Mike you have made selections in a > sequence of time. Coincidence > as exemplified is not a paradox. It is > simply you juxtaposing events in > time. In anthropology we do the same story > making. As a graduate > student, I did regression analysis for a > professor who firmly believed > that the advent of Christianity in Zambia > had profound economic effects > on household heads in remote rural > villages who believed or belonged to > one of several Christian denominations. He > gave me his data and asked > me to run a statistical analysis on it > with an eye towards finding > correlations between religion and maize > production. There was no > correlation whatsoever given the data. He > could not accept it. It was > his experience that religion had something > to do with it a la Max Weber > of whom he was a fan. So I told him that > the significant > non-agricultural event (seed type, soil > fertility, fertilizer, acreage, > farming skill, etc.) in the data facts > points to tin roofs and that > these are an exceptionally clear and > better predictor of maize > production than religion or the > agricultural factors. He said he could > not write about that. I asked him why not > after all tin roofs clearly > predicted greater maize production. The > correlation was nearly .90 and > the regression analysis supported the > correlation after accounting for > all covariances in the relevant variables > inputted. So the coincidence > of the appearance and existence of tin > roofs signaled greater annual > maize production over a number of years. > This worked. He did not like > it. It offended his sensibilities and he > worried that it would make him > a laughingstock if he wrote about. > > Later, I poked him by saying that his data > was insufficient and that > that is the reason why he did not find his > expected finding. So, I made > the explanation more appetizing by > selectively demonstrating the > correlations between tin roof and > fertilizer, fertilizer and cash > income, cash income and civil service > jobs, civil service jobs and > education, education and English language > learning and religious > affiliation, so that he could make the > story that Christian beliefs > increased maize production of those > households over non- Christian ones. > He liked that. His data did not directly > support this in any way > whatsoever. I just made it up. As you made > up yours. > > There is no reluctance necessary for > anyone, Michael, unless there is > timidity. These are stories and beliefs > that satisfy some use, whatever > that may be. It is selective and made up. > The whole of jnana yoga, > Advaita Vedanta, Monism, spiritual or > material, Monotheism, Pantheism, > Panenthesim, Atheism, Buddhism, Science in > all its forms are all, all > made up and used for whatever the use is > served and there are many > usefully served. > > > > So: Second Law of Coincidence ----All > > lokas are not contemporary so > > simultaneous causal efficacy is not > > impeded. > > > > Ramana discussed how you could be the > > reincarnation of someone who had not > died > > yet! > > > > Predestination: You shall have already > > been saved; > > or not, as the case may be. > > > Michael. > > These are beliefs, stories. And they can > be construed in any way > whatsoever. They mean only what is put > into them. I could be the > reincarnation of my great, great, great, > great, great, granddaughter. I > can believe it and be happy or not. There > is no reason not to believe it > or to believe it, and there is no way to > prove or disprove it, if there > is any concern with that. Ultimately all > beliefs have no particular > meaning other than that given by the > believer and what they can be used > for in life and the value placed on them > is simply preferential, it > works well or it does not. The presence of > a tin roofs as a predictors > of maize production for several villages > was indisputable on the surface > by using the data well analyzed with > better than the standard > procedures used in anthropology, but it > was not satisfying as an > explanation for that professor and most > likely his readers. Something > more relevant, something that would fit > into the ontologies proffered > and reiterated in anthropology was sought > to make their world go round > or to prop it up, or whatever the case may > be. > > These stories and beliefs, that is, every > single thing written in this > place, are no more than that. All serve > the purveyors and some serve the > receivers. Is this not understood? > Whatever comes in language and > concept is a story, a belief, a > representation taken in as many ways as > there are other beliefs and stories and > representations that differ. So > one storyteller disagrees with another > storyteller in all the many ways > that is done. What else could there be? > Story telling is fun and > interesting and one experiences many > things. > > The story that all is stories and beliefs > is a story, is it not? > > Whose story is best? > > I have not the faintest of an idea, for it > does not matter. > > What matters has not been much of a > subject of discussion here. Timidity > rules here in that. > > ****************************** > > Hi Lewis, > It's not the same as your Zambian > story at all. There you were looking out > of a range of facts for a plausible > correlation with an established fact. There was no established fact. The professor was trying find his " fact " to establish what he thought was true from data he collected. The professor had an end point increased production due to Christian belief and belonging. How did it happen? I made it up using sets of correlations that bumped along to show what he wanted. You had the tree protected. How did that happen? You made the story from selected events. Did you gather all that there was to gather or only that which was most proximate? Did you gather as it was happening or after.? I do not see the difference. > What was the common set of factors in all > the instances of successful husbandry? > You would be looking for some syndrome, > were there any salient factors etc right? That is what he was looking for. I found nothing but tin roofs and increased production. He wanted something else, I picked selectively picked correlated evidence (within accepted limits) that allowed a story to come to his conclusion. You see Mike, it was true that the Christian households produced more, but there was no statistical way to demonstrate it, His data could not verify his story as he wished, so he had to settle for a series of correlative events that gave him confidence to explain his view. The correlations were not even used. Just the story, which he could back up with correlations if he had to. > In the thorn tree case the lines of force > are clear and unambiguous and even > commonplace. I am sure more can come up. One can never gather all the relevant facts. That is my business and the game is never ending in how to make a story. Whether you choose to > accept the power of the shee or the Holy > Spirit is entirely up to you. Yes. > > The extraordinary thing about the stories > and beliefs is how much fundamentally > they have in common. A lot of people get > by without religion. Others find that the > world is a more mysterious place than > they imagined and this is continually > confirmed through their experience and the > deepening of their faith. They don't > claim this in order to give meaning to > their world or to trump materialists; > their world gets its meaning through a > force which is extrapersonal by whatever > name you call it. Yes. > > Have you prematurely closed your account > with reality? No. I do not have a view of reality at all. It is beyond me. Simple ignorance is a way of life for me. I experience and go on. What I experience is simple. The complexity is only in the talking of it. And the talking of it is only to give an understanding and to that any story will do, depending on what stories are useful or accepted or proffered at the moment, that which comes out. Your story is essentially > a self referential one and is therefore > closed in on itself. Self-referential what does that mean? Does it mean the use of " I " in relating the story. Then of course it is. That is for you to think or not to think of in your way and in your experience of my words. What you read in them is what you are. You do not know me. I have been here long enough for you to know what " I " and " me " stands for. I have said it many times. That you do not believe it or know it is understandable. You make of what is said as you do as others will do. That it is closed in on itself or not makes no difference. You need an > innoculation of doubt. What doubt is necessary when nothing is known except as an experience without thought, Michael. There is nothing to doubt. I know nothing really. Because I can present material does this means I know something? This means I know how to use words to say this or that. Tell me what do you think I know? I know and tell stories and these are not to be believed. I do not believe them or invest in them or do anyhting with them but present them as the case may be. For others to believe is error. If one believes these stories than one may have doubt about their story. Is there anything to believe in what has been said here and then to doubt it if someone disagrees? And can it not go side by side with an opposing or different view so that there are multiple views? Is someone losing something here that needs to be defended? Is there something lost or unrecognized? You are not at stake, Michael. Your image is not at stake. Your view is not at stake. I am not at stake. The ideas are not at stake. Yours nor mine. I may not disagree? I may not oppose for the sake of opposing so that there are many views? Is there one upmanship here? Is someone right? I cannot present boldly? Why is it so difficult to have different views at the moment and to let them be together as it is? We respond as we go as we are. The whole thing can be stood on its head and presented in any number of ways similar or contradictory or nonsensically. What is the concern about inoculations? Ok. Lets look at it from another perspective. The little minds of men try to fathom the mysteries of God and in doing so trip all over themselves and make fools of themselves at every moment that they allow their personal will not be aligned with His. If their will was aligned with His they would automatically know that God saved the tree and that God blessed the Christian householders because of their faith. It was His hand that did so for his unfathomable reasons and how it was done is not known by humanity for they cannot fathom the ways of God. Now to seek to understand what happens instead of holding fast in faith is a sign of arrogance and pride in man's own will and works. Lewis here is a prime example of such arrogance and pride in what he has said, since he holds no beliefs and has no faith. Michael on the other hand is a different story. For God favors his words over Lewis.' This indeed may be the case, given the writer thinks of me in that way and you in the other. Does not matter? I may damned if I do not choose the right way and you have less to be concerned about if we are to believe who wrote that. You approach with reason, Michael, so reason is returned. Some here approach with reason or experience or emotion or will or whatever and vituperation is returned by others being what they are at the moment and incapable of responding in any other way to that which offends them. It is a behavior here that will continue as long as jnana is the focus. I suppose a focus on mind and knowing and knowledge sacrifices other aspects of knowing in the human appearances. You mentioned that, something about humility, a lesson not learned by the reasoned ones. Try the > affirmation 'Everything I know is wrong' > > Michael. I am incapable of being otherwise, Michael. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.