2012.09.23 13:00 - Unlearning Prejudice and Shame

The Guardian for this meeting was Bruce Mowbray subbing for Aphrodite ( on her way to Venice!!! )

The comments are by Bruce Mowbray.

druth Vlodovic: hi :)
Bruce Mowbray: Hello, druth!
druth Vlodovic: you were confusing me
Bruce Mowbray: Heya, Kori.
druth Vlodovic: I started heading to your home here thinking you were at the pavilion already
druth Vlodovic: hi kori
Bruce Mowbray: Heading to my home?
Bruce Mowbray: or to Kori's?
Korel Laloix: Heya'
druth Vlodovic: well, for wherever you had rezzed in the sim
Bruce Mowbray: If "you" means me, then I was at home, yes.
Korel Laloix: Join us Bruce.
druth Vlodovic: oh comfy, I like these new cushions
Korel Laloix: Don't be a non conformist.... smiles
Bruce Mowbray: Thanks, Kori!
Korel Laloix smiles
Korel Laloix: You look far more comfortable that way Bruce.
Korel Laloix: So, we have a topic for today?
Bruce Mowbray: It's what I need today -- I've been running around all day in RL.... so I need a rest.
Bruce Mowbray: I don't have a topic.
Bruce Mowbray: Anything on either of your minds?
Korel Laloix: How about prejudice?
Bruce Mowbray: Ahh, that's a good one.
druth Vlodovic: have you encountered prejudice lately?
Korel Laloix: I had a lovely date last night.
Korel Laloix: In me actually.
Korel Laloix: And she is part Hispanic.. and part Comanche.
Bruce Mowbray listens carefully.
Korel Laloix: And I find myself sort of resenting the Comanche part of her...
Korel Laloix: I mean, that is history from a while ago.. but I still have some cultural stigma about them.
Korel Laloix: Odd when looking inside.
Bruce Mowbray: So, your inner feelings are a reaction to her racial history, Kori?
Korel Laloix: Exactly.
Korel Laloix: But I don't get that when dating white girls...
Korel Laloix: Not sure how my brain is working on this one.
druth Vlodovic: we don't always feel the way we want, or expect
Korel Laloix: That is so true.
Korel Laloix: maybe the closer you are to someone, the more you can resent them.
Korel Laloix: ?
Bruce Mowbray: Hmmm. I don't know how it would be possible to grow up in America and NOT have absorbed some of the culture's racial bias, frankly.
Korel Laloix: True.
Korel Laloix: Just easy to really resent the Comanches though.
Bruce Mowbray: I also sense that in myself - - - but never in person-to-person relationships, only in the media.
druth Vlodovic: this is more pre-america I would suppose, dating the cultural enemy
Korel Laloix: But again, that was well over a hundred years ago.
Bruce Mowbray: So, part of this is your strong identification with your own culture. . . ?
druth Vlodovic: what is the history between Comanche and Cherokee?
Bruce Mowbray listens.
Korel Laloix: Not the Cherokees specifically.
Korel Laloix: Just when all the tribes were pushed into IT... Indian Territory... now Oklahoma.. they essentially preyed on the agricultural tribes.
Korel Laloix: Before that they genocided, tortured and gang raped their way across the SW US.
Bruce Mowbray: Welcome, San!
Korel Laloix: Heya
druth Vlodovic: hi san
Korel Laloix: So now, I am becoming romantically involved with someone of that line.. and prowd of it...
Korel Laloix: Casts some really strange emotions.
Bruce Mowbray: This new relationship could be a growth edge for you, perhaps.

--BELL--

Bruce Mowbray: Do you know the song from SOUTH PACIFIC?
Bruce Mowbray: -"You Have to be Carefully Taught"
Santoshima Resident: {nope}
Bruce Mowbray: Racial prejudice -- like self-hate - has to be learned.
druth Vlodovic: you have to carefully un-teach yourself
Bruce Mowbray listens.... Yes, un-teach yourself...
druth Vlodovic: but it's not a failure when something clings
Bruce Mowbray: I'm also guessing that externalized prejudice might have self-hate as its root.
Bruce Mowbray: "when something clings"? You mean, like when self-hate or prejudice clings?
Bruce Mowbray: or when those feelings cling?
Bruce Mowbray: I'm not sure what you meant, druth.
druth Vlodovic: when something comes up from the depths that you didn't expect to still be there
Bruce Mowbray: Matthew Morrison in South Pacific "You've Got To Be Carefully Taught"
druth Vlodovic: or that you hadn't thought about in a long time
Bruce Mowbray: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwK8HyAbFZA
Bruce Mowbray: Oh yeah, I know those demons. . . that pop up when you least expect them...
druth Vlodovic: or is this feeling about the Comanche tied up in your own identity?
Bruce Mowbray: I raised that same question, druth. . .
druth Vlodovic: I've known a lot of people who would blithely tell you stuff about your own "people" without the slightest embarrassment or application to yourself
Santoshima Resident: an example, please druth?
druth Vlodovic: "that's just the way it is" but it seems to only apply to strangers or things they haven't seen in you yet
Santoshima Resident: less abstract example possible? from your own life?
Bruce Mowbray: It's as if they were talking around you -- not even appreciating that you are included among those whom they are talking about when they say "those people."
druth Vlodovic: well,ok,in RL I'm white, so I'd have people telling me to my face that because of that I'm racist
druth Vlodovic: but the "fact" didn't seem to have any real application
Santoshima Resident: skin colour = racist ?
druth Vlodovic: but also you couldn't seem to shake them of the generalization
druth Vlodovic: whites are racist, it's a common belief
Santoshima Resident: we are immersed in racist cultures, and implicated in those structures,
Santoshima Resident: we / I / you
Bruce Mowbray: Absolutely, San....
Santoshima Resident: are not separate from that reality

--BELL--

Bruce Mowbray: So un-learning is an important challenge and responsibility.
Santoshima Resident: absolutely ... moral and ethical responsibility, in whatever circumstances one's life presents
Santoshima Resident: please i'm sorry to need to leave, using a battery that is fading ~ i would like to continue this conversation, at least, I will read the wiki
Santoshima Resident: bye for now
druth Vlodovic: have fun san
Bruce Mowbray: I still maintain that persons who feel some deep shame about themselves are most likely to exhibit prejudice towards others.
Santoshima Resident: ty, peaceful day everyone
Bruce Mowbray: Bye San!
Bruce Mowbray: This is normally Aphrodite's session . . . but she's flying to Toronto today -- and tomorrow to Rome.
druth Vlodovic: a lot of effort is put into making people shameful about themselves, so they will accept the absurd
druth Vlodovic: if people believe in themselves then they will rely on their own senses to know what is what
druth Vlodovic: making prejudice a bit harder to swallow, other than as interesting tendencies
Bruce Mowbray: Yes, Robert Bly gives a talk about the seven sources of shame -- and says we have "shame tanks" that get filled up by our families, culture, etc.
Bruce Mowbray: and unless we un-learn that shame, we will look for ways to fill our own shame tanks throughout life.
druth Vlodovic: can you list them?
Bruce Mowbray: Your point about accepting the absurd is very good, druth.
Bruce Mowbray: I have them somewhere on this computer -- I'd have to look for them...
Bruce Mowbray: I will do a quick Google search.
druth Vlodovic: well, not all prejudice is absurd
Bruce Mowbray: I do recall some - but not all of them.

druth Vlodovic: especially if someone is a member of a group known for violence etc
druth Vlodovic: but it is necessary to trust your own self in order to see through, and with, prejudgements
Bruce Mowbray: OK. I can't find the Robert Bly article, so I'm back now.

(I eventually found a WORD doc of Robert Bly's talk/interview on my hard drive.  Here's a link to it: http://hermitdog.com/bly/sevensourcesofshame.htm)

druth Vlodovic: we lost Korel
Bruce Mowbray: Some families -- like my own -- are "shaming families."
Bruce Mowbray: The parents control their children through shaming them.
Bruce Mowbray: "What would your father say if he saw you doing that?!!!"
Bruce Mowbray: etc etc etc.
Alfred Kelberry: hey you
Bruce Mowbray: And, it sometimes takes decades for those attitudes toward ourselves to be unlearned.
Bruce Mowbray: Hey, Boxy.
druth Vlodovic: hi boxy
druth Vlodovic: it's a problem of conflating bad behaviour with being a bad person
Alfred Kelberry: i've been watching a movie. reminded me of pab a bit :)
druth Vlodovic: as though there is a base personality which is either good or bad
druth Vlodovic: and you just have to find out which is you

--BELL--

Korel Laloix: Back.. sorry.. phone.
Korel Laloix: Reading back.
Bruce Mowbray: Un-learning that you're basically a "bad person" is a big job. . .
Bruce Mowbray: It's not easy being green.
druth Vlodovic: I started with the idea that nature is just starting tendencies and that nurture (including self-nurture) is ultimately more important
druth Vlodovic: even emotions and instincts can be trained
Bruce Mowbray: for sure, druth.
Bruce Mowbray: Heya, Wol!
druth Vlodovic: for my kids I've always told them I'm training them lol
druth Vlodovic: hi wol
Wol Euler: evening all
Alfred Kelberry: ms woly :)
druth Vlodovic: and,of course, I'm not always right (which may shock you, but it's true)
Wol Euler: (please continue despite my late arrival)
Korel Laloix: Ok... read up to date.
druth Vlodovic: we're talking about prejudice and our unintended emotional reactions
Wol Euler: ah :)
Bruce Mowbray: I'm sure you're doing a great job of training your kids, druth - - The problem with shamed children is [sometimes] they feel that they need to put on a false self in order to be loved or appreciated.
Bruce Mowbray: They cannot just be themselves -- because they've been taught that they are worth shaming.
Korel Laloix: Prejudices is such a strange part of society.
Bruce Mowbray: and deserve that shaming, sadly.
Bruce Mowbray: It is indeed, Kori.
Korel Laloix: I find I have the fewest overt problems with white folks.
druth Vlodovic: well, the idea of shaming is that a person is inherently bad and needs to be covered with good behaviour
Wol Euler listens.
Bruce Mowbray: yes, druth.... that
druth Vlodovic: rather than having good behaviour taught to them so it becomes part of them
Bruce Mowbray: is it...
Korel Laloix: But there are still structures in this society that favor specific groups.
Bruce Mowbray: racism, sexism, ageism, gender preference, --- all of those are deeply entrenched in American culture....
Bruce Mowbray: and have been for many decades.
Alfred Kelberry: :)
druth Vlodovic: al cultures, really
Korel Laloix: IN all cultures.
druth Vlodovic: snap :)
Bruce Mowbray: yeah.
Korel Laloix: I mean.. without exception, every time I have been told by I guy that I am a lesbian only because I have not had is penis.. it has been from a black guy.
Korel Laloix: So there are aspects of culture that go toward race, but not in the usual thought pattern.
Bruce Mowbray: [four minutes count-down to Bertram's meditation]
Alfred Kelberry: *puts his paw in woly's lap*
Wol Euler smiles.
Bruce Mowbray: I think the topic of prejudice needs more exploration. . . . Thank you for bringing up the topic today, Kori.
Korel Laloix: I think because I fall outside of the usually black/white thought pattern, I see things a bit differently.
Korel Laloix: I need help sorting my own feelings out for sure.
Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
Bruce Mowbray: We all do, Kori.
Wol Euler: your experience has probably been very different from at least Bruce's and mine
Wol Euler: and boxy
druth Vlodovic: I hope this doesn't create distance between you and her is all
Korel Laloix: I don't think it will. .just need to figure some things out.
Alfred Kelberry: it seems to be that black/white dichotomy is very hard to escape for someone living in America
druth Vlodovic: or maybe you have the answer and just need to convince yourself lol
Bruce Mowbray: Equanimity -- free of preference and prejudice. . . . (one of the "Four Abodes" in Buddhist tradition).
Bruce Mowbray: I'm off to Bert's now.
Bruce Mowbray: Thank you all.
Wol Euler: me too
Korel Laloix: Ciao bello
Wol Euler: goodnight all, see you anon
druth Vlodovic: have fun Bruce
Alfred Kelberry: meditate well

--BELL--

Korel Laloix: It was strange in Germany though.
druth Vlodovic: cya wol
Korel Laloix: There was a very noticeable prejudice against Turkish people... worse than what I have seen in the US in a lot of ways.
druth Vlodovic: history is the foundation of the present
Korel Laloix: It was a very intellectual prejudice.... or that is how it was packaged.
druth Vlodovic: oh?
Korel Laloix: Not emotionally based like here.
Korel Laloix: OK.. off to SL church service.
Alfred Kelberry: prejudice against ethnic groups is a function of our tendency to generalize
druth Vlodovic: just when it was getting interesting :)
Alfred Kelberry: pray well, kori
druth Vlodovic: have fun korel
Korel Laloix: I wil.. smiles
Korel Laloix: Let me know if you want a TP...
Alfred Kelberry: sure, why not
druth Vlodovic: what sort of church?
Alfred Kelberry: i crashed churches before :)
Korel Laloix: My home denomination.. MCC
Alfred Kelberry: do they dance and sing gospels?
Korel Laloix: http://mccchurch.org/
druth Vlodovic: I'll pass, one of my self-taught prejudices is against religion lol
Korel Laloix: We are 98 percent not straight.. so a bit of an interesting crowd.
Alfred Kelberry: druth, yet you're here at pab :)
Korel Laloix: About 75% of our vicars are les... smiles.. fun.
Korel Laloix: Ciao all.
druth Vlodovic: it was presented as secular spirituality, and I was hooked before I saw all the religious people
druth Vlodovic: bye korel :)
druth Vlodovic: being aware of your prejudices is the first step to "holding them lightly"
druth Vlodovic: a much better approach in my mind than denying them
Alfred Kelberry: or the first step towards prejudice to your prejudices :)
druth Vlodovic: denying something often gives it power
Alfred Kelberry: that's true
druth Vlodovic: yes, I'm sadly prejudiced against prejudice lol
Alfred Kelberry: like facing fear
Alfred Kelberry: hehe
Alfred Kelberry: jokes aside, awareness is a good start, indeed
druth Vlodovic: I was thinking the other day about faith versus fact types of believing
Alfred Kelberry: what did you come up with?
druth Vlodovic: with the distinction being that "fact" means that you simply believe it to be true, so there is no real emotional component
druth Vlodovic: while "faith" suggests that you believe it because you want to,so it is defended emotionally
druth Vlodovic: I was trying to get someone to disabuse me of this notion but I didn't "get" his arguments lol
Alfred Kelberry: anything we invest to has an emotional component
druth Vlodovic: but if it is simply fact you don't need to invest in it
Alfred Kelberry: and yes, faith is a really strong anchor
druth Vlodovic: for instance I have heard people speak of a belief in god as though it was simply casual fact
druth Vlodovic: and they were genuinely puzzled that I didn't believe
druth Vlodovic: and didn't get emotional about it
druth Vlodovic: it was a bit odd to hear them talk,since I wasn't accustomed to this approach
Alfred Kelberry: yes, it's culture dependent
druth Vlodovic: actually the idea behind my assertion is that "faith" is only necessary when you aren't sure it is true at all,and are worried that it isn't
Alfred Kelberry: in my environment being an atheist is kind of a norm
druth Vlodovic: like my belief that people have a responsibility to help and support one another
druth Vlodovic: I don't have a real basis for this
druth Vlodovic: so it is a bit of a shock when people assert otherwise
--BELL--
Alfred Kelberry: "not sure if it's true" - i think you're right here
Alfred Kelberry: i like to say that where science ends, god begins :)
druth Vlodovic: and god is just a support for faith
druth Vlodovic: I think faith came before god, btw :)
Alfred Kelberry: it's a constant struggle of science to battle for the uncharted god's territory, one step at a time
Alfred Kelberry: i suppose so... it's close to hope
druth Vlodovic: defending something often pushes it from fact to faith
druth Vlodovic: which is when people get emotional about it
Alfred Kelberry: before the concept of god, ancient humans probably developed hope first
druth Vlodovic: well,kids naturally have faith in their parents
druth Vlodovic: I guess hope that they are capable, since kids are wholly reliant on them
Alfred Kelberry: re: defending. yes, this is when faith becomes dangerous as it can't be reasoned with logic
druth Vlodovic: my suspicion is that politicians caught on to this and invented religion
druth Vlodovic: yes, a great strength of science is that you must always keep in mind that you might be wrong
Alfred Kelberry: to some extent, if you mean those in power
druth Vlodovic: well,those who wish to be in power
Alfred Kelberry: ancient shamans holding sacred knowledge to rule over common people
druth Vlodovic: or hunters wanting the kudos of their peers, until they rely on them for self-worth
druth Vlodovic: ancient shamans were the first scientists, until they traded fact for faith
Alfred Kelberry: some of them were, i suppose
druth Vlodovic: using my own special definition of "fact" of course, I was using the term "knowledge" but that was pointed out as being mushy
Alfred Kelberry: i believe that question of faith in god is a personal matter and should not be governed by some central authority, as what various heads of churches are today and centuries before that
druth Vlodovic: I think that faith of any sort is dangerous
druth Vlodovic: since it disconnects a person from needing to be part of rersality
druth Vlodovic: "reality"
Alfred Kelberry: yes, facts is a better term here. implies something proven.
druth Vlodovic: but in this case I mean something accepted as fact, even if it later turns out to be wrong
druth Vlodovic: btw
druth Vlodovic: did you read my e-mail trying to define "science" in the google group a while back?
Alfred Kelberry: druth, i disagree. faith is known to save people. give them hope to go on. it has a positive effect if not turned into blind belief.
Alfred Kelberry: i might have, but i don't remember :)
druth Vlodovic: ok,I was hoping to get your opinion on it
druth Vlodovic: my definition of science was a process of "observation, conjecture, observation"
--BELL--
druth Vlodovic: implying that it isn't really science unless it comes back to observation of reality (usually done through experimentation)
Alfred Kelberry: i agree with you here
druth Vlodovic: if you have faith in something you have examined carefully then I'm ok with it
druth Vlodovic: and if you are willing to hold it as faith only in bad times
druth Vlodovic: but are willing to re-examine it
Alfred Kelberry: yes
Alfred Kelberry: this is where i have trouble with pema's approach. it's purely faith based.
druth Vlodovic: well,I think it is more a matter of being in the middle
druth Vlodovic: take the higgs bosun for instance
druth Vlodovic: until recently it was a matter of observation conjecture, but wasn't seen
druth Vlodovic: which meant it wasn't my definition of science until very recently
Alfred Kelberry: yet it had factual premise for its existence
druth Vlodovic: you don't feel that Pema's explorations are based on initial observations?
Alfred Kelberry: they are, but they're not in the realm of science
druth Vlodovic: not yet
druth Vlodovic: the other two parts of what I said were defining philosophy as observation, conjecture, and stopping there
druth Vlodovic: and religion as conjecture, application
druth Vlodovic: but that is mainly so I can accuse philosophers of being religious :)
Alfred Kelberry: druth, in the same way as church is not yet in the realm of science
druth Vlodovic: the distinction I see is that church isn't trying to return to reality
druth Vlodovic: but instead is trying to apply it's theories to daily life
druth Vlodovic: without testing them
Alfred Kelberry: same as pema does it :)
Alfred Kelberry: you can't test faith in rational terms
druth Vlodovic: well, the theory I am working on is that as long as he says he is using a scientific approach he is trying to create experiments and thus test them against reality
druth Vlodovic: I can have faith in rational things
druth Vlodovic: in fact I see faith as a tool of the mind to deal with troublesome times, and to help cement societies
druth Vlodovic: and not having to do directly with fact at all
Alfred Kelberry: he does say it, but as my repeated inquires show, he does not follow it
druth Vlodovic: I have great faith in rationality and the existence of fact lol
Alfred Kelberry: yes, troublesome times. this is what i meant by saving people.
druth Vlodovic: I lack sufficient knowledge of his personal investigations to answer that I'm afraid
druth Vlodovic: which is why I am defaulting to taking him at face value
Alfred Kelberry: just read our correspondence :) he's avoiding any hard questions
druth Vlodovic: you'd have to get specific for me to do a proper debate
druth Vlodovic: well,he isn't providing the answers you are looking for
Alfred Kelberry: i think he is himself a victim of his faith into his own idea
druth Vlodovic: or in the form you require for your own acceptance
druth Vlodovic: well,it could be
--BELL--
druth Vlodovic: but remember this
Alfred Kelberry: yes, it's one way to rationalize it
druth Vlodovic: he isn't a scientist, he is a human doing science
druth Vlodovic: his reply to my email was to point out that he knows a theologian who does things scientifically
druth Vlodovic: and I immediately thought of Elijah in the bible
druth Vlodovic: who took a very scientific approach to god lol
druth Vlodovic: even allowing peer review and duplication of his experiment
druth Vlodovic: (at least I hope it was Elijah, it's been ages since I cracked that book)
druth Vlodovic: have you developed an experiment to test a conclusion made here at PaB?
Alfred Kelberry: there's no peer review possible in what pema does. he attested to this himself. there's no common framework to relate to.
Alfred Kelberry: i think it's Pema's job to do that
druth Vlodovic: At this point Elijah proposes a direct test of the powers of Baal and Yahweh. The people of Israel, 450 prophets of Baal, and 400 prophets of Asherah are summoned to Mount Carmel. Two altars are built, one for Baal and one for Yahweh. Wood is laid on the altars. Two oxen are slaughtered and cut into pieces; the pieces are laid on the wood. Elijah then invites the priests of Baal to pray for fire to light the sacrifice. They pray from morning to noon without success. Elijah ridicules their efforts. They respond by cutting themselves and adding their own blood to the sacrifice (such mutilation of the body was strictly forbidden in the Mosaic law). They continue praying until evening without success. Elijah's offering is consumed by fire from heaven in a stained glass window at St. Matthew's German Evangelical Lutheran Church in Charleston, South Carolina Elijah now orders that the altar of Yahweh be drenched with water from "four large jars" poured three times (1 Kings 18:33–34). He asks God to accept the
druth Vlodovic: sacrifice. Fire falls from the sky, consuming the water, the sacrifice and the stones of the altar itself as well. Elijah seizes the moment and orders the death of the prophets of Baal. Elijah prays earnestly for rain to fall again on the land. Then the rains begin, signaling the end of the famine.
druth Vlodovic: not if you want to be involved in it
druth Vlodovic: to the extent to which you wish to participate it becomes your responsibility
Alfred Kelberry: i assumed that this group was created to test his theory, but from what i have seen, it's turned into a group of followers
druth Vlodovic: that's from wikipedia btw
druth Vlodovic: there is a bit of that :-?
druth Vlodovic: but if the insistence is yours so is the responsibility to come upwith a solution
druth Vlodovic: imho
Alfred Kelberry: try and say something critical of pab - you will imitatively get a defensive, almost religiously so, response
druth Vlodovic: I see a lot of deflection
Alfred Kelberry: this is not a research environment
druth Vlodovic: it is an environment in which those who wish to conduct research can obtain encouragement and resources
Alfred Kelberry: but then again, it's been a discussion group for years now, with little to do with actual Pema's ideas themselves
druth Vlodovic: if you are at a university and with to have an experiment conducted you can't reliably expect to just wait for it to happen spontaneously
druth Vlodovic: yes,this is mainly a discussion group,or a sangha as people like to say
druth Vlodovic: what statements have you had people get defensive about?
Alfred Kelberry: re: discussion group. maybe it actually is an experimental verdict of his ideas, that they are not viable
druth Vlodovic: "experimental verdict"?
Alfred Kelberry: lack of critical thinking at pab
druth Vlodovic: critically think something at me, perhaps we can get a theme going
--BELL--
Alfred Kelberry: yes, it's been more than 4 years and no real investigation into pema's theory has been done. it didn't really got traction.
Alfred Kelberry: eh, my replies are out of sync :)
druth Vlodovic: :)
druth Vlodovic folds her hands and waits patiently (while hell freezes over)
druth Vlodovic: (patient waiting isn't my best talent)
Alfred Kelberry: oh, i much prefer for people to speak out impatiently out of sync, than keep it to themselves (as quite a few do here)
druth Vlodovic: ok,try this
druth Vlodovic: state Pema's theory in your own words and we'll see what we can break it down into
Alfred Kelberry: i got several personal messages of support during my correspondence with Pema, yet none voiced them publicly
Alfred Kelberry: i think it says something
druth Vlodovic: well,you can state a problem as often as you like
Alfred Kelberry: druth, as i understand it now, i see now viable options for its development or even reason to look into in scientific terms. it is a good meditative practice though.
druth Vlodovic: but unless you take concrete steps towards a solution why bother?
druth Vlodovic: my impression from the beginning was that it was simply a practice
druth Vlodovic: I didn't know there was a unifying theory
druth Vlodovic: as for reason to look into it
druth Vlodovic: you seem to have reason to state that there is a problem
druth Vlodovic: isn't that enough reason to look into it?
druth Vlodovic: otherwise the statement of the problem would be superfluous
Alfred Kelberry: oh, i think I've taken plenty. i initiated the theme discussion that later developed into a series of special theme sessions and a lot of writing in the group email
Alfred Kelberry: there's been a lot of effort into formulating the theory and its goals... which ended in vain and vague commentaries
druth Vlodovic: but what is the theory?
Alfred Kelberry: yes, it is a fine concept as a practice. it was derived from zen. but pema is talking about augmenting science. such claims require a bit more than 9 sec meditation.

--BELL--

Alfred Kelberry: you should ask Pema that :)
druth Vlodovic: this is like going on a trip with a guide who refuses to state the destination
druth Vlodovic: Pema doesn't have a problem with what is going on, not one that he has stated
druth Vlodovic: so why would he solve one?
druth Vlodovic: hi Zen
druth Vlodovic: boxy and I are talking one another in circles lol
Zen Arado: Hi surprised to find anyone here
druth Vlodovic: tell me:
Alfred Kelberry: mr Zen :)
druth Vlodovic: what is the basic theory behind PaB?
Zen Arado: is there one?
Alfred Kelberry: :)
druth Vlodovic: Boxy claims there is one but refuses to divulge it
druth Vlodovic: I thought it was just a method
Zen Arado: just trying something
Alfred Kelberry: druth, this is how legends are born :)
druth Vlodovic: oh?
Zen Arado: can you hear a stream?
druth Vlodovic: no
Zen Arado: if you toggle video?
druth Vlodovic: not yet
Zen Arado: top right hand corner
Zen Arado: little camera
druth Vlodovic: I clicked it
Zen Arado: you Alf?
druth Vlodovic: I hear a kind of high pitched whine
Alfred Kelberry: druth, Pema has a premise that his approach would somehow augment science. what i tried is to understand how this theory works. its observations, results, goals. he did not present anything of substance. there's only faith that it will happen one day. nothing is divulged here - you can read it all in the group emails and chat logs.
druth Vlodovic: there
druth Vlodovic: it's on the media stream
druth Vlodovic: then it is just an approach
Zen Arado: isn't that true of all science?
Zen Arado: you can look back and it is all so obvious
Zen Arado: but new stuff isn't
Zen Arado: can you see that?
Zen Arado: media stream I mean?
druth Vlodovic: well,this is why I tried for a simple definition of what science is
Alfred Kelberry: you can see this defensive reaction first hand now, druth :)
druth Vlodovic: I must have missed it
Zen Arado: why do you think that is defensive?
Zen Arado: seems obvious to me
Alfred Kelberry: i don't want to get into that again, zen
Zen Arado: watching Tal ;)
Zen Arado: oh so nice
druth Vlodovic: well, get into it with me
Alfred Kelberry: i have tried and moved on
druth Vlodovic: I see the video and hear it now
druth Vlodovic: lol,not at all
--BELL--
druth Vlodovic: if you'd moved on you wouldn't have been talking about it now
druth Vlodovic: you seem to have great faith that Pema is doing something reprehensible, but seem unable to state what it is
druth Vlodovic: or I am unable to understand what you are saying perhaps
druth Vlodovic: you mentioned that you needed the stream for your project Zen,
druth Vlodovic: what are you planning?
Zen Arado: I have lots of projects
Zen Arado: sighs
Zen Arado: I'm just playing around
Zen Arado: can you change the video?
druth Vlodovic: I think I may have spotted a difficulty boxy
Zen Arado: the problem with video is that nobody uses it much
druth Vlodovic: you are looking at it as though there is a theory
Zen Arado: then when you try to share something nobody can get it
druth Vlodovic: but he is trying to promote a method of answering one
Zen Arado: that is media on a prim
druth Vlodovic: you'd have to come up with a theory and use his method to test it to see if there is a problem or not
Zen Arado: I just made it
Zen Arado: so easy to do
druth Vlodovic: I can change the video by clicking on the prim
druth Vlodovic: neat
Zen Arado: can search too
druth Vlodovic: maybe try to prove something that is already proven
druth Vlodovic: as a sort of control
Alfred Kelberry: druth, please read my correspondence with Pema if you're interested in the subject. don't make up concepts on the spot.
druth Vlodovic: the google group is hard to browse :(
druth Vlodovic: give me a date and I'll read up
druth Vlodovic: but I find it odd that you get so reluctant when I try to pin down specifics
druth Vlodovic: I have read some of your recent stuff but all I saw was that you had some sort of project you didn't wish to state that you wanted Pema to do for you
druth Vlodovic: just pay the guy and have him do it
druth Vlodovic: or try it yourself
Alfred Kelberry: yes, this is why it's not easy to have a continuing discussion. people end up picking random phrases and making assumptions from there.
druth Vlodovic: then make a clear statement
druth Vlodovic: you are the originator
druth Vlodovic: so it ought to be simple
Alfred Kelberry: what statement?
druth Vlodovic: what
druth Vlodovic: is
druth Vlodovic: the
druth Vlodovic: problem?
druth Vlodovic: until you state that clearly you can't expect to be able to come up with methods of approaching a solution
Alfred Kelberry: druth :)
druth Vlodovic: now he is going to accuse me of being defensive
druth Vlodovic: you claim Pema wants to enhance the scientific approach
druth Vlodovic: and you don't like his method
druth Vlodovic: why?
Alfred Kelberry: no, there's a miscommunication
Zen Arado: why do I like this group they are only kids
Zen Arado: I'm weird
Alfred Kelberry: i think it is unfair of Pema to give scientific significance to his pab approach

--BELL--

druth Vlodovic: why?
Zen Arado: what is scientific significance?
druth Vlodovic: the ability to claim that something is scientific
Zen Arado: provable by scientific means?
Alfred Kelberry: druth, because "scientific" implies a certain methodology that is completely absent from his approach
druth Vlodovic: no, that the method can achieve scientifically significant results
Zen Arado: when he is doing science it is
druth Vlodovic: he explained his view that the scientific method is a kludge used to gain funding
Zen Arado: but difficult to apply to spiritual areas
Zen Arado: but he leaves the possibility open to that
druth Vlodovic: I've heard this other places too
druth Vlodovic: that people go back to the beginning and rewrite stuff to sound like they used a scientific method to achieve their results in order to justify their funding
Zen Arado: most would say science and spirituality don't mix
druth Vlodovic: usually to politicians and accountants
Zen Arado: kinda tend that way myself
Zen Arado: yeh Druth
Zen Arado: science gives things respectability
Alfred Kelberry: druth, and this is your argumentation?
druth Vlodovic: my argument is that what you are insisting on may not be possible
Alfred Kelberry: that there are immoral people in science and they fix up results?
druth Vlodovic: or realistic
druth Vlodovic: not necessarily immoral
druth Vlodovic: but that they need to explain things to lay people whose main goal is allocation of funds
druth Vlodovic: or buying votes
Zen Arado: no...people who use pseudo science
Zen Arado: bad science
druth Vlodovic: I play games where you allocate funds to certain research projects and in X years you get X result
druth Vlodovic: reality doesn't do this
druth Vlodovic: people get results by various methods then test them
Alfred Kelberry: druth, so you say that because of the system of funding, it is impossible to call Pema's approach non-scientific?
druth Vlodovic: strong word "impossible"
Zen Arado: ah prefer Bee Gees version
Alfred Kelberry: it's what you said :)
druth Vlodovic: let's be careful of emotional responses
druth Vlodovic: no
druth Vlodovic: I didn't say it was impossible to call it non-scientific
Alfred Kelberry: can you see how you right now fix up the results yourself? :)
druth Vlodovic: in fact I didn't mention his methods specifically
druth Vlodovic: I was making general statements
Alfred Kelberry: you redefine science as "system of funding" and use it as an argument to say that Pema'
druth Vlodovic: 'sec, let me re-read
Alfred Kelberry: s approach scientific
Alfred Kelberry: i find it difficult to grasp
druth Vlodovic: umm, no I didn't
druth Vlodovic: I said that what you define as a scientific method may simply be an invention by scientists for the use of laymen
druth Vlodovic: not their actual methodology
Alfred Kelberry: ok, you want general terms? i think you will agree that most people define science as a systematic study, not funding and fixing up numbers
druth Vlodovic: I honestly don't know if his approach is scientifically useful or not
Zen Arado: well I'm off to bed
Zen Arado: nite
druth Vlodovic: 'night Zen
Alfred Kelberry: this is precisely what Pema does. he redefines words in order to suit his approach.
druth Vlodovic: in fact he and I have different ideas of what we are actually doing here
druth Vlodovic: words don't have meanings
druth Vlodovic: meanings are given words
druth Vlodovic: if someone wants to investigate reality then all the more power to them
druth Vlodovic: it's what they do with their conclusions that makes it scientific or not
druth Vlodovic: Elijah decided that his god would light up his altar no matter what he did to it
druth Vlodovic: and in the story, he was right
druth Vlodovic: he took his conclusion and tested it
druth Vlodovic: mind you
druth Vlodovic: not a lot of rigor,
Alfred Kelberry: words represent objects and ideas and there's a general agreement to what they mean. you can't change their meanings whenever it suits you.
druth Vlodovic: I mean he did have his results peer-reviewed
druth Vlodovic: and he had a control test done
--BELL--
druth Vlodovic: but his sample size was small
druth Vlodovic: "general agreement" means social convention
druth Vlodovic: and words have their meanings changed all the time
Alfred Kelberry: this is where i differ from you and Pema. you believe that such redefinition in order to back up a spiritual theory is fine. i don't.
druth Vlodovic: I think you are assuming dishonesty
druth Vlodovic: I don't redefine words in order to back up a theory
druth Vlodovic: I attempt to create certain types of thoughts in your head using words
druth Vlodovic: then I want feedback so I can test my thoughts against yours
druth Vlodovic: the words are just vehicles
Alfred Kelberry: yes, i agree with this mechanics. but you use it in order to redefine words to your liking. how do you imagine people to communicate when they use words, but not their meanings?
druth Vlodovic: by explaining and feedback
druth Vlodovic: the same way we know anything really
Alfred Kelberry: it's an invulnerable position. you can redefine any word which you're not agreed with and turn it around in your favor.
druth Vlodovic: I see a table and touch it, the table pushes back and confirms it's existence
Alfred Kelberry: ok, druth. i get it.
Alfred Kelberry: i should really go now
Alfred Kelberry: thank you for the company :)
druth Vlodovic: I usually use the dictionary for words, which gets me in trouble in philosophy sims where people use completely different means of the words
Alfred Kelberry: right
druth Vlodovic: usually because their sources are several hundreds or thousands of years older than mine
Alfred Kelberry: ok, i'll go do some funding and numbers tweaking
druth Vlodovic: so we use feedback to make accommodations
Alfred Kelberry: see you :)
druth Vlodovic: and redefine words on the fly in order to convey meanings
druth Vlodovic: bye
druth Vlodovic: good luck with the funding :-)