Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [UFOnet] #8 Counting coup in the final conflict

Expand Messages
  • Roger Anderton
    Krsanna wrote: ...........A compass pointing to magnetic north is the ultimate direction finder ...... Even after Pole shift? Krsanna wrote:........ Primitive
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 30, 2001
      Krsanna wrote: ...........A compass pointing to magnetic north is the
      ultimate direction finder ......
      Even after Pole shift?
      Krsanna wrote:........"Primitive religion" is another outstanding issue that
      needs to be addressd, by the way. What is a primitive religion in contrast
      to a sophisticated
      religion? Again, you introduced the "primitive religion" as part of your
      theories; therefore, I am most interested in getting a definition for
      "primitive religion" with an example of an advanced religion.
      I used definition from encyclopaedia. You appear to wish to redefine this
      concept. This particular question does not interest me, as much as it does
      you. What is defined as primitive religions is more advanced than what is
      called modern religions. So, what? Who cares. Religion bores me. I much
      prefer (proper) science.

      Krsanna: ......I pointed out that Jung never said anything close to what
      you suggested and offered to post Jung's own definition of the collective
      unconscious. You have
      introduced several wild ideas as theories to explain data that you cannot
      explain with other theories that you find acceptable.

      I look forward to information on Jung. But I am not a follower of Jung. His
      idea of Collective Unconscious can probably be applied in other ways than he
      envisaged, but I give credit that the initial idea of Collective Unconscious
      is his.
      Is Reincarnation not itself a wild idea from what passes for modern
      mainstream science. So, if a person introduces one wild theory, why can
      another person not be allowed to introduce a second wild theory?
      The point I was trying to make was how do you test one wild theory against
      another, not that I believe in any of the two wild theories.

      Krsanna: ... The facts are not important to you if they do not support
      your
      preconceived conclusions?
      Well, partly right. Facts are unimportant to me, if I do not know how to
      interpret them. I have no 'preconceived ideas'.
      Krsanna :...This is getting better and better.

      Why? You have avoided answering my question of how do you prove
      Reincarnation is real. You have cited data, but not said why it should be
      interpreted in one way and not in another way.
      You cite the meeting between Sagan and Dalai Lama and miss the important
      part, namely what the Dalai Lama did not say.
      The Dalai Lama is in his 14th incarnation on earth, and he did not say that
      HE KNEW REINCARNATION WAS REAL. Does this not strike you as odd? Instead he
      said something else.
      Does that mean anything to you?
      When an Enlightened Person is asked about Reincarnation does he say
      something different from an Unenlightened person.
      Compare what you say with an Enlightened response and an Unenlightened
      response. Which category would you fit in?
      If you do not answer this last question, then I am too bored to contiune
      this conversation.
      Cheers Roger

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "TimeStar" <timestar@...>
      To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:20 AM
      Subject: [UFOnet] #8 Counting coup in the final conflict


      > Roger wrote:
      >
      > You cite Weiss as backing your belief in reincarnation, thus his
      > conclusions of his study must be in agreement with your point of view. I
      > have read similar studies, and doubt their interpretation. Thus infer this
      > must also apply to him.
      >
      > Krsanna wrote:
      >
      > You are more concerned about who has read and accepted his Dr. Weiss' data
      > than the data and/or proofs per se? Does this mean that the data
      developed
      > by Dr. Weiss is secondary to what you infer about those who have read his
      > books?
      >
      > In summary:
      >
      > 1) You do not know anything about Dr. Brian Weiss' work;
      >
      > 2) You formed an opinion without any knowledge of Dr. Weiss' work based on
      > what you infer because I have read his books; therefore
      >
      > 3) The facts are not important to you if they do not support your
      > preconceived conclusions?
      >
      > This is getting better and better.
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.