- #91
TENYEARS
- 472
- 0
Either you posted three and two were deleted or this is messed up. I received three responses to your post.
Tonight I Visit The The Bowlless Bowl
- Thread starter TENYEARS
- Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of experiencing a "bowl-less" existence, symbolizing a shift away from conventional thinking and the matrix of societal norms. Participants explore the idea of cleansing one's perception to gain clarity and insight, with references to personal visions and the potential for scientific validation of spiritual experiences. There is a debate about the existence of God and the challenges of presenting subjective experiences as objective proof in a materialistic world. The conversation also touches on the limitations of communicating profound ideas to those who may not be receptive, likening them to "fish" in a bowl. Ultimately, the thread emphasizes the importance of personal belief and the quest for understanding beyond the visible reality.
- #92
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
That was because I deleted twice and reposted, sorry. I will do this sometimes (re-edit) so long as no one has posted after me.
- #93
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
I'm not talking about peoples rights. Sure they have a right to do it. But I also have a right to believe it isn't legit when they refuse to accept a very good offer to provide proof.
- #94
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
And yet they still won't provide proof of it and earn some easy cash.
- #95
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Yes I know this. That's exactly what I meant. I didn't intend to discuss moral codes. If I said something about it I didn't intend to. I understand what you are talking about completely. It is the only argument not to take the $1M and still be somewhat rational. Of course some people, like zero, will think it is a cop out. I think it is certainly worthy of debate is all I meant.
Last edited:
- #96
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Would you say Randi was a died-in-the-wool Atheist? This was the distinct impression I got, which is an indication of bias right there. While I also got the impression that the only proof Randi is looking for is proof to justify his own Atheism.
So you tell me, is this the kind of person you want heading up a program like this, one who acts solely out of self-interest? Rather than someone who's at least impartial or, has an appreciation for both sides? Otherwise it comes across as a big joke, and the only people it's "likely to draw" are those (perhaps like Randi himself) who think they can trick the system. It's like Tenyears said way back at the beginning of the thread, Randi is not looking for truth.
- #97
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
What are you saying they refused because they didn't respond, to something they otherwise might not be aware of? (Randi's challenge). Or, are you saying Randi approached them directly and then they refused? Hey, that's a big difference!
Oh, I think you mean "cash in."
- #98
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
Did you read my list of facts about the Randi challenge?
I will repeat them for your convenience.
(a) Randi is NOT in charge. He simply has the money.
(b) The tests are design in such a way that there is no possibility of bias on any side.
If this was a factor of his opinion, then we can say that your objection was valid. But you don't seem to understand how the tests work. It is not a matter of what Randi is looking for.
- #99
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Randi is no better than the damn news media that come on at night. It's all sensationalism. Therefore, if you get Randi out of the way, and you get the sensationalism out of the way, then it might be another story. And yet without all the sensationalism, who cares? Right? This is the kind of attention you need in order to draw attention to "James Randi." It's big joke! Whereas if it was that important, why isn't anybody else offering the same challenge? Unless of course it's already being done, in the name of private research, except without all the fanfare and the money.
- #100
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
This is why:
The reason for the fanfare is so that no one can claim that they didn't respond because they never heard of it.
- #101
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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?
And indeed I can see how Randi comes across, like the "savior of Atheism."
- #102
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
Notice another fact.
Randi.org <- .org being legally a suffix implying a non-profit making organisation. If he makes money out of it, then you can go sue them for false advertising.
I think you don't have any real evidence to go on here, except for your own bias against Mr Randi...
Randi.org <- .org being legally a suffix implying a non-profit making organisation. If he makes money out of it, then you can go sue them for false advertising.
I think you don't have any real evidence to go on here, except for your own bias against Mr Randi...
- #103
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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?
- #104
Zero
Do we need to attack teh personality of James Randi, or can we speak to the bigger issue of how no 'miracle' has ever been performed under anything like strict scientific protocols?
- #105
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
Jeez... I thought you read the site...
I suggest you read the site properly at:
http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html
And then make a criticism, if you still can.
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".
I suggest you read the site properly at:
http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html
And then make a criticism, if you still can.
- #106
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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?
http://www.randi.org/jref/join.html
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?
Well, it looks to me like the Randi Foundation is pretty well set up here. Sorry, but I don't buy into it! Hey, I'm willing to let the whole thing go right now but, since you seem to have the inherent need to defend that which, for all intents and purposes can't be defended (or judged any differently than some of these other claims), then I feel obliged to respond. Forgive me for being skeptical!
P.S. I probably will let it go at this point, as I don't feel there's much else for me to say.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #107
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
It's not a "business". The membership fees enter the foundation's funds, as do the things sold from the shop. Hence the non-profit making tag. Maybe the words sponsorship, or donation would be a clue? Giving member's free mugs somehow doesn't qualify for "Randi's raking it in". And you still haven't shown how any profit making would affect the carrying out of the tests. Compare the price of the items in the shop with the membership fees. Is PF skewed because Greg offers PF T-shirts? You are grabbing at air here...
Look at all these other heinous money grabbers:
http://www.macmillan.org.uk/catalogue/
http://amnestyusa.org/join/participate.html
https://www.greenpeace.com/forms/gpicontr.html
http://www.dvou.org/makeadonation.html
[insert pointless wry comments as neccessary]
Look at all these other heinous money grabbers:
http://www.macmillan.org.uk/catalogue/
http://amnestyusa.org/join/participate.html
https://www.greenpeace.com/forms/gpicontr.html
http://www.dvou.org/makeadonation.html
[insert pointless wry comments as neccessary]
Last edited by a moderator:
- #108
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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.
http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html
- #109
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
The all too obvious question is:
How do you know it wasn't a dream brought on by your encounter with the bag of potatos, which triggered a previous memory of the big chief Joseph event. Or perhaps how did you know, this long after the actual vision (15 years and all) that your mind has not in fact changed your memory to something more extraordinary than it was?
Which almost brings one back to the point of the thread.
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?
How do you know it wasn't a dream brought on by your encounter with the bag of potatos, which triggered a previous memory of the big chief Joseph event. Or perhaps how did you know, this long after the actual vision (15 years and all) that your mind has not in fact changed your memory to something more extraordinary than it was?
Which almost brings one back to the point of the thread.
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?- #110
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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?
Hey, it either happended the way I said I did or it didn't, if you can't accept that, so be it! But don't come preaching to me that such things aren't possible ... and then try backing it up by some self-proclaimed moron who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about!
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.
- #111
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
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:
"And yet if you read the page you would have to acknowledge that what I'm alluding to is paranormal." is untrue, and there are many other explanations that are not paranormal.
Mayhaps you are reading too much into what I write?
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.
- #112
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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."
http://www.dionysus.org/
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?"
- #113
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
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.
I would like you to try to see it from my perspective - I have NOT experienced it. I do not know how you in that much detail. I have no evidence, but to trust in the complete accuracy of your words. I have not studied any of the probabilities involved. And I do not know if there is any bias which may have skewed your retelling. To me, several mundane possibilities have not been eliminated, in that it may not be a psychic event, but a mere co-incidence. To me, it is uncertain. If I have experienced it as you have, maybe I'll feel differently. If you lived life as I have, maybe you'll see things differently.
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.
- #114
Zero
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.
- #115
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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.
This is something Randi needs to know as well, that you just can't come out point blank and say prove to me that it works, not without understanding what it means to get from point A to point B, and why things occur the way they do. And no, you may not be able to reproduce the results (which isn't to say it's not impossible), but at least you'll understand what the results mean.
Indeed it's very much like trying to predict which way the wind blows. You may not understand "from whence it comes and whence it goes," similar to what it says about being born of the spirit in John 3:5-8, but that doesn't change the fact that the wind doesn't exist. And yet if we learn how to construct a sail, and put it on a boat (regarding "our lives"), then it doesn't matter, because we can now harness the wind from whichever direction it blows.
If you would like to read about an experience which was the pivotal point of my life, that's even more significant than the Chief Joseph account, then please follow the link ...
http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html
- #116
Zero
Nevertheless, I seen to suggest that I have to brainwash myself to accept delusion as evidence, and it simply won't fly for me.
- #117
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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.
- #118
Zero
Ever consider that you don't actually present anything for us to 'get'? Open your mind to THAT possibility.
- #119
TENYEARS
- 472
- 0
Zero, Iacchus32 and anyone who wishes to partake, think of a method proof which would be considered valid to you. What is needed is a brainstorm list of what would be considered valid proof or a method or methods of proving beyond the shadow of a doubt. I already have one that I have been speaking about for years. I think in the right manner it can be turned in upon itself to create a circle of unbroken proof as good as anything else which is considered proof of anything else by someone else. I can now not post for a few days. I will be back.
- #120
Zero
Sounds like a plan, doesn't it?
Similar threads
- · Replies 24 ·
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 12 ·
- · Replies 26 ·
- · Replies 16 ·
- · Replies 10 ·
- · Replies 16 ·
- · Replies 9 ·