Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00165)

CLARIFICATION BELOW

Dear Mr. Wry,

My comments are below at ///

Message 10295 
From: "wry" <wry1111@e...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: Theos-World Brain-Mind and Consciousness Studies, some 
references from BA Goswami

Hi.
----- Original Message -----
From: <bhakti.eohn@v...>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:23 PM
Subject: Theos-World Brain-Mind and Consciousness Studies, some 
references
from BA Goswami


Subject: re karmic preferences/tendencies manifesting as Theosophy,
RC, Bhakti yoga, science, history, etc ...

snip


The History

<<<The Bhaktivedanta Institute cherishes the privilege to have started
the world's first graduate degree program (M.S./Ph.D.) in the rapidly
emerging field of consciousness studies.>>>

Wry; How can you "cherish the privilege" to have done something which 
you
have already done?"

/// If you are so bothered by their grammatical error, or can not 
understand their meaning why don't you write to THEM and discuss it 
with them ? Why take a cheap shot at them on this site? You may be 
an expert polyglot, but sometimes others make grammatical errors when 
writing in a languge that is not their first / natal tongue. It is 
quite possible that this was written by someone from India. I can 
understand their meaning. Is it really SUCH a significant error? 
The B. I. group has produced much of excellence. Nobel Laureates 
have participated in their conferences, which have brought together 
many of the world's best neuroscience biophysics experts. Why make 
such a petty criticism here? If you think that this grammatical 
error is so important and you want to help, contact them and point it 
out. 

///To all that was contained in that post from me on the B. I. study 
of Consciousness Within Science, is this the kind of response here 
that you think is worthy and appropriate? In terms of clear 
communication, your use of the word "you" both above and below is 
inappropriate, as this letter is a response to my letter, and 
therefore would seem to refer to myself, Bhakti Ananda Goswami. You 
have not identified the writers you are responding to in this post, 
and therefore it appears that the the "you" you are addressing is 
myself. This IS a significant and misleading error. 

>>It is my
opinion that though consciousness is a 'philosophical' problem, only
by appealing to the foundational issues of theoretical physics, we
might be able to solve it.>>

Wry: Consciousness is not a problem. It is people who are not fully
conscious but are functioning mechanically and from motives of which 
they are not even aware who are causing all of the problems of 
humanity. When a human being becomes fully conscious, his intelligent 
doing will reorganize material in such a way that many problems will 
be easily solved and others around him will do the same.


//// So now you are debating with which graduate student? Does it 
matter to you who actually said what ? Do you think that it matters 
to the readers here ? Don't you want your readers to know who the 
person is that you are addressing here ? 

>My research interest is the famous 'EPR
Paradox', the problem of non-locality and how this relates to
consciousness studies. The Bhaktivedanta institute has given me the
opportunity to do this unique research on two very important aspects
of scientific inquiry: EPR paradox and Consciousness. With its
completely 'different' research approach, the institute is bound to
emerge as one of the premier institutes within the frontiers of
science, in the near future.>>>snip

Wry: Which "you" will cherish.

/// Who are you refering to with this "you" ? Why are you taking 
such an attitude to this fellow?

WRY: I am very interested in science, myself. The problem is that the 
only way a person can study consciousness is by studying himself AS 
HE IS and not as he THINKS he is. It is the "as he thinks he is" 
which creates a lag, by which not only does everything involving 
human relationship and housekeeping of the earth cease to function at 
optimum, but which skews any data, as all data will always be 
subjectively selected. Only by PAYING ATTENTION can questions about 
locality be fully resolved, as, at the peak of the pyramid, material 
reorganizes into a plane. I got a sense from a previous writing of
yours about transcendence that you understood this (a little), but 
now I wonder. Sadly, scientists tend to miss this, no matter how 
brilliant and sincere they are, and I have seen this time and time 
again. Wry

/// I clearly labeled the section of my post that was an inclusion 
from the Bhaktivedanta Institute, and included in it the notes on 
their Graduate Students, just so members here could see what some of 
these young scientists are working on. Your above critical response 
seems so entirely inappropriate that I wonder if you actually 
understood what you were reading. I even stated "ps I am not 
affiliated in any way with the B.I." So why are you addressing me 
regarding the work of these B I students ? Why do you consistantly 
take such an attiude towards people ? 


/// Many of your posts here are incredibly arrogant and insulting to 
people. You seem to like to analyze others, but have you analyzed 
why it is that you consistantly treat people here so badly ? Or are 
you oblivious to the fact that you often treat people in such a 
puffed-up offensive manner ?

/// Normally people become defensive when they think that they have 
come under attack, but you seem defensive or combative a lot of the 
time when no one has even appeared to attacked you. I am not your 
enemy. The B I does not exist to annoy you. Some B I student does 
not require a critical response from you just for having stated a 
premise for his graduate work. 

/// I have been under relentless attack for years because of my 
activism in various human rights causes, and I realize that this has 
had an effect on me. I am now somewhat hyper-vigilant, but realizing 
this, I try to be extra careful not to make erroneous assumptions 
about people. Sometimes however I do make a mistake, for example 
when I did not understand why my personal yahoogroup profile was 
coming up on a link provided by D. Caldwell. As soon as I realized 
that I had made an erroneous assumption that this was his purposeful 
doing, I apologized. It was my mistake and I was wrong to take such 
a defensive tone with him. I even threatened to sue him, momentarily 
thinking that he was persisting in some kind of identity-damage 
campaign against me. However I was relieved and happy to find out 
that it was my error due to not understanding that it was a computer 
glitch that caused it. 

/// Now in your own case, is anyone here really your 'enemy' or 
someone who is trying to injure you in some way ? Is there any 
evidence of real ill-will against you ? Or are you just habitually 
offensive with people ? Grappling over and with IDEAS is not the same 
as fighting with people. I am not personally offended by the honest 
humble opinion of atheists or agnostics, theosophists or new agers 
etc. Can you discuss ideas with people without insulting them ? It 
is uncivilized BEHAVIOR, which causes 'material' offence. For 
instance, if racists didn't BEHAVE like racists, at least their 
hatred would be confined. So whatever the members of this egroup 
THINK, if they are civilized, they will try to live/act by a certain 
standard of CONDUCT. Humility / respect, truthfulness in exchange, 
and avoidance of personal attacks are basic to communicating with 
integrity. This letter is not an attack on you. It is a response to 
observing your behavior with others for over an month now. Why are 
you so arrogant and insulting to people ? It is unneccessary. 

Lighten up.

best wishes, 

BA Goswami