Except that he invalidates the whole thing by drawing so much attention to himself. And if he does draw anyone, it's the wrong kind of people, i.e., those who are probably more like himself and are trying to trick the system. How much money (or, at least notoriety) do you think James Randi has made out of this so far?
http://www.dionysus.org/ ... Do you see the sufix here? I imagine it applies to "organization," but nobody seemed to make a big deal out of issuing it out to me, and I'm not a non-profit organization (I'm not commercial either).
He dosn't have to make any money from it directly, not with all the notoriety he gets, which is probably the best form of advertising ... and then you start raking in the dough, through all the other little services the Randi Foundation provides. Or, if nothing else through accepting donations?
Now notice the words NOT FOR PROFIT. The .org tag is taken very seriously. Throw away the comments on raking it in, because legally, they don't mean jack.
The goal of the prize is very plain. As is the way it is only part of their overall activities, and that the money is an offer. Also notice "mutually agreed scientific conditions".
Oh, did you check out this page? And I was just guessing when I brought it up. If you people want to scrutinize other people's motives, then I don't see any reason why James Randi should be exempt either. Do you really think they would be able to "stay in business" if it wasn't for their millon dollar gimmick?
Hmm ... Founded in 1996. Wasn't that about the time that the Nova program aired? Actually I think it first aired in 1994 ...
Spiffy inscription? ... Suitable for decaf and regular? ... Sexy maroon? ... I mean, what are they trying to sell?
Hmm ... All kinds of neat stuff to buy on this page!
Boy, that $10,000 package sure seems a bit more than what they were charging for the remote viewing package?
Would you care to read about one of my own "psychic events?" In fact I think if Randi happened to be there when it happened I could have very easily qualified for the $1,000,000. And yet that's not the nature of how it works, not for me anyway, as it's more a matter of going through process, with an open mind, while taking heed of the signs, and waiting to see what happens. Very rarely do I know what's going to happen beforehand. And yet if you read the page you would have to acknowledge that what I'm alluding to is paranormal.
The failing with all these fishbowl things is that one can never realize whether you are in the fishbowl looking out, or outside the fishbowl looking in, or if this fishbowl exists at all. If you insist on an open mind, can you truly say whether or not your mind is simply closed in a way that you think of as open, and those you find closed minded are simply open in a different direction to you?This is the typical kind of response you would expect from James Randi. You obviously didn't read it very closely. I didn't just write the whole thing down yesterday, as you seem to suggest. And, although it wasn't unil 1991 that I did write it down, I do have a good method of recall, nor am I the one to embellish things (i.e., embellishment = no credibility). Of course the dream was related to the bag of potatoes, as was everything else related (to American Indians) over this period of a few days. Neither did I know who Chief Joseph was at the time, nor had I seen the movie before. Do you understand that everything led up to the phone-call which occurred during the movie?
Hogwash! ... You really must refrain from speaking about those things which you don't comprehend.Which almost brings one back to the point of the thread.
How many responses have you seen from James Randi?
What is your method of recall?
No, but the bag of potatos was inspired by General Joseph's story, and you can easily have remembered it subconsciously. (It is very hard to remember NOT remembering something, as studies have shown)
I did not notice the section where I preached that such things aren't possible. Maybe you might point that out? I am saying simply that:
Oh? So you say that you are in direct contact with the truth and know for certain about the limitations of everyone else's knowledge while being certain in the absolute nature of your own? It is a matter of common sense that no one know everything.
I've seen the Nova program twice, in 1994 and possibly 1997? Have also been to his website a couple of times, and even corresponded with him by e-mail once shortly after I set up my webpage in 1997. It was more out of curiosity and, when I told him about my webpage, he replied with a couple of snide remarks, as if to say, "I'm not prepared to give you the time of day."
Actually I don't make it much of point to remember anything, except when something like this occurs, at which point I stop, take everything in, highlight the key points, and begin the process of reciting it periodically while focusing on the key points (in conjunction with something else that might possibly be related}.
That's Chief Joseph by the way. And no, the bag of potatoes (1) was the first thing that occurred and, since I had never seen a bag of potatoes with an Indian on it (fully blown I might add), it just stuck out in mind. Therefore it just kind of set the tone (or theme) for the dream (2) which happened a couple of nights later which, no doubt inspired me to work with American Indians in my mediation a day or two later, wherein I had the vision of an Indian pulling a knife on a settler (3), and later that same day the movie came on about Chief Joseph (4), before I got the phone-call from Nez Perce, Idaho (5) during the movie ... So it's like I said it's all related. Whereas I think the correct term here would be "synchronicity."
Excuse me? Were you there? And what were you just saying about this whole "fish bowl" thing? And yet we are speaking of something that I've studied and become familiar with over the past 25 years. So you may wish to consider the possibility that I do know what I'm talking about.
And yet if you were to consider it from the standpoint that I am telling you the truth, then obviously, the truth is not being cultivated here. In which case I would have to argue, "What's the point?"
I would repeat - it is hard to remember not knowing about something.
And you may need to consider the possibility you are wrong. Notice that I have not yet said at all that what you state is wrong, or that it is impossible etc. So please don't be so hostile.
The fishbowl came from the title of the thread, and the initial suggestion by TENYEARS that we (except him of course) are all living in the analogical fishbowl, which we consider to be the universe despite the realities out there. My philosophy is the following - this is wrong because for all others it is similarly possible to see others as being in the fishbowl and us without, and to use his analogy, it is impossible to determine whether one is outside the fishbowl looking in, or inside the fishbowl looking out. But a barrier exists in the difference between our experiences - as the above demonstrated. I propose that we each construct the barrier of mind, and in the end this barrier does not distinguish discrete bowls but that we each see what is partially true in a different way, and that to pretend there is no fishbowl and that an absolutely open perspective is possible is unrealistic.
I agree wth all of this, and would add that the rest of us have a right to ask for some confirmation or proof before we take you seriously. Like FZ+ said, there are more mundane explanations that need to be eliminated before some of us willl believe a fantasical story.
Actually, the only way you're going to believe any of this is if you can establish a basis by which to accept it for yourself. Meaning you have to have some sort of working idea of it your mind and understand how it works ... in other words by working with it.
And what does the word "delusion" suggest, if not outright bias? It's like I said, there's no need to carry this any further. Some people, if not the vast majority, will never get it.
Dissident Dan said:
