ESR - Transcendental Meditation

<< Comment #1 @ 21:42 CDT, 12 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

p0rt

meditation is for fags, the real subliminally think and know it, and becomes a state of natural mind

fear kills

<< Comment #2 @ 04:08 CDT, 13 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Thorin

how he made it available to everybody for free. Why isn't that the case with Transcendental Meditation?

Never heard of warez? Do they have to actually come to your house and type in the right phrases to google before it's free for you?

The fact you apparently need to learn it from David Lynch specifically is why it's gonna cost you $900. Overrated movies don't fund themselves or their creators indefinitely.

Edited by Thorin at 04:08 CDT, 13 July 2010

<< Comment #8 @ 01:04 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #2

everyone knows pure consciousness can only be reached by taking as much money of your followers as you can.

<< Comment #3 @ 05:28 CDT, 13 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tbone

Buy a gun.

<< Comment #4 @ 05:51 CDT, 13 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mammon

its all fractals n shit u know

<< Comment #5 @ 05:16 CDT, 15 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

eMbAh

What the fuck are these kind of fucking shit responses, fucking fuckwits you have fucking nothing to say

<< Comment #6 @ 10:49 CDT, 15 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zealot - Reply to #5

go spend your 900$ it'll be worth it.

happy now? we'll see who the fuckwit is and who is not later.

2%

<< Comment #7 @ 20:23 CDT, 26 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ZeriouS

I guess it may work, like autogenic training works for some. Maybe afford a cheaper course in a Folk high school (Folkeh�jskole). This will do the trick.

*edit*

quote:
"In 2009, fees in the US were reduced for a one-hour-a-day, four-day course to $1,500 for the general public and $750 for college students. Fees in the UK were also reduced, and a tiered fee structure introduced, ranging from �290 to �590 for adults, and �190 to �290 for students, depending on income.[100] The Maharishi was criticized by other Yogis and stricter Hindus for charging fees for instruction in TM, who contended that it was unethical, amounting to the selling of 'commercial mantras'. "

source: ofc wikipedia

I just saw, that this kind of meditation is offered in a 7-step course. I don�t know, but if benefits the human being at all, it should be free. Since this is very commercial, I�d rather use other techniques to approach the same goal and effects intended by Transcendental Meditation.

After listening to the David Lynch interview (video in background), it�s kind of yet another spiritual method someone offers to you, which is able to solve everything, but only in return of money. This makes me wary.

Edited by ZeriouS at 20:36 CDT, 26 July 2010

<< Comment #9 @ 07:20 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Anonymous (217.255.203.189)

usually you need a teacher to help you break free from former thinking patterns. it is very diffucult to reach higher states of what is usually referred to as "Enlightenment if you're all by yourself.. it may be possible. the problem is that the common mind always "wants" something or tries too hard to "achieve" things. this desire is an obstacle if you want to meditate. you cannot reach the state of enlightenment by wanting it, yet not wanting it is considered a sin as well. in meditation there is no time so causality in a way does not exist, because things take time to happen. there is only the now, which is the only time. suppose you would ask a dog or an eagle "What time is it?". they would probably shrug and look at you and say "What do you mean, what time? The time is now, what other times are there?"

<< Comment #10 @ 08:30 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains

Let me just say. David Lynch is awesome. Inland Empire was awesome.

Meditation has a purpose. Look at Lynch; his stress levels have probably been off the charts. What you get is a person with a problem finding a solution, then thinking it's a universal good.

Meditation elevated to something like enlightenment is favoring the silencing of an accidental evolutionary crafted mind over any other state or interaction possible in the world.

As Alva Noe said, "It's definitively an interesting kind of difference, i'm not sure I would say that it's higher"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af3Vq-C1ck8#t=37m50s&fmt=18

Just to make it clear, meditation is good for most people because we are often stressed out and need to clear our heads to be able to focus on anything. The tool is to focus on nothing. Taken religiously, however, the "silence" and the "now" are joined into this absurd worship of pure "nothingness".

<< Comment #11 @ 08:49 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #10

I regularly clear my head with large amounts of alcohol. I will now to try to get my health insurance to understand it is a form of meditation and to pay for it.

Thank you.

<< Comment #14 @ 11:18 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #11

clear out* my head

/fixed

<< Comment #12 @ 09:25 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dansen

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRETARD ALARM

<< Comment #13 @ 09:28 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tom

yes cause you really need to pay to learn how to meditate

<< Comment #15 @ 11:21 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #13

Pay to learn to play piano, pay to run on a treadmill, pay to learn to play quake, pay to learn to meditate. It's all part of the natural progresson of things.

Edited by CPLains at 11:23 CDT, 27 July 2010

<< Comment #16 @ 11:22 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #15

I'd say paying to run on a treadmill qualifying as the strangest.

Edited by CPLains at 11:23 CDT, 27 July 2010

<< Comment #17 @ 11:39 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tom - Reply to #16

i'd say you're the strangest

<< Comment #20 @ 18:46 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #17

thanks tom, that means a lot <3

<< Comment #18 @ 11:40 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zealot - Reply to #15

what's natural about it?

<< Comment #19 @ 18:45 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #18

oh i don't know, the trend with us humans just seems to be to delegate as much specialized mental, physical, artistic, etc. work to "others" (machines, factories, experts etc.)

canned food, canned laughter, hair-cut; what do they have in common? that i delegate making food, laughing, and cutting hair to "others".

have you heard of "coaching"? it's all over here in norway. it's basically someone telling you how to live your life. or, as they say, "how to achieve". if you do sports you have a mental coach, etc.

i'm not objecting - these tinned canns outdo my own cooking, and the zerg-overlords are usually right when they say i should do this or that; what do i care? now i can focus on the important things like playing starcraft2 and roaming this forum. self-sufficiency is so 1970 anyway

Edited by CPLains at 18:55 CDT, 27 July 2010

<< Comment #21 @ 18:52 CDT, 27 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #19

AKA/OR, simply:

"Haven't you heard!? Humans are ultrasocial species in intimate relationship with technological others; the fate and destiny of humanity is the elimination of the individual AS WE KNOW IT."

<< Comment #23 @ 08:41 CDT, 28 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zealot - Reply to #19

my point was... this kind of 'progression' isn't natural in any way. it's even debatable if it's a progression but i leave that to you.

my question was: why call it natural? because everyone around keeps telling you it is?

<< Comment #24 @ 08:58 CDT, 28 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #23

Hogwash. As far as "natural philosophy" and "natural laws" go, the ultrasocial trend of humans qualifies exemplarly.

What we must not do, is confuse "natural" with good or right, which is what Herbal Essences and Co keeps telling everyone.

Same line of reasoning works for progression. To deconstruct these terms to leave everyone blind doesn't solve or help for anything.

<< Comment #25 @ 09:08 CDT, 28 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #24

Ok. I admit.

The opposite way can leave you feeling fatalistic with regard to possibility.

What happens all over the place is people try to challenge the determinism by creating a fictional world of choice instead of facing the real problems with grounded terminology.

In Norway we had this show where a guy was out to "expose" the social sciences because they had ignored biology for too long. What had happened was that they had coverd up the biological influence of IQ, sexual orientation, disposition to violence etc. obviously to "make room for" a society where everyone is equal, and everyone is free.

What happens with this kind of reasoning is the exact opposite of what was intended.

Although it's dangerous to face the determinism of where we seem to be going ("lets help nature along by killing the invalids!") the opposite is prone to escape the problem altogether ("lets get rid of this technology and return to the garden of eden!").

<< Comment #28 @ 12:18 CDT, 28 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zealot - Reply to #25

uhm with less brainfog i can take a guess at what you were trying to say.

we shouldn't think in dualisms like 'determinism' and 'escapism', it's not going to help us in any way. in my opinion it's far more interesting to understand the underlying premise of both concepts.
the answer is what you didn't want to hear: we do not know what is 'natural' or 'right' because we are unable to.

therefore we should not
a) kill life we deem not worth living (because it's 'unnatural')
b) throw away our tech and go back to to 'nature'

the 'natural' exists about as much as 'nature' does, bottom-line: we have a choice.

<< Comment #31 @ 08:00 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #28

but that's exactly what i mean :)
we should *not* think in dualisms!

here is the trick:

if natural simply is the scientific, detached description of a trend then there is no problem. *natural is not a value in itself*

_then_ we have a grounded discussion, where everything else can come to light; e.g. whether this or that trend is *necessary* or not; whether it *could* be otherwise in an "elsewhere". (:

<< Comment #34 @ 08:11 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zealot - Reply to #31

well, in my opinion there is no objectivity, or in other words no detached description of anything. i never understood how anyone could seriously believe in 'detaching' themselves from what surrounds them.

of course this also means that science which believes in objectivity should not under any circumstance be allowed to determine our decisions or even influence our discussions.

that's not exactly helping in the grand scheme of things but the deconstructivism bug has apparently struck my marx loving brain.

...and back to square one :(

<< Comment #37 @ 08:16 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #34

But that's great! I'm the biggest fan of people like Bruno Latour who take that sort of consideration to the logical extreme.

Both that article (a glance of Latour) and that docu (questioning the self), are highly recommended! ((:

<< Comment #40 @ 08:31 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zealot - Reply to #37

ok, will watch :d

<< Comment #41 @ 09:21 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #40

:D let me know what you think (:

<< Comment #27 @ 11:49 CDT, 28 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zealot - Reply to #24

neither did i confuse 'natural' with what is right or wrong nor was i asking you what you knew about 'natural laws' or 'natural philosophy'.

my question was rather simple but apparently needs to be made even simpler for you to understand.

what is 'natural' about the ongoing commodification of literally everything in modern capitalist societies? why did you use that word and went on to write paragraph after paragraph defending your choice?

what i am implying of course is that there is nothing natural about this 'progression' and anyone who proclaims this felt victim to one of the most idiotic ideologies out there.

quoting you:

Pay to learn to play piano, pay to run on a treadmill, pay to learn to play quake, pay to learn to meditate. It's all part of the natural progresson of things.

<< Comment #29 @ 07:35 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #27

I already gave you the simple answer.

"As far as "natural philosophy" and "natural laws" go, the ultrasocial trend of humans qualifies exemplarly."

I only invoked these terms to make you see that there's no real content to the term "natural" other than what we classify as what "nature" seems to be doing in general: humans growing more social as they grow and cluster up is an exemplar natural quality.

Relating then, to what i said, it seems to me that if growth and clustering is the natural course we keep to, then everything must be specialized - including services and goods. And that, in turn, leads to having someone else cut your hair, cook your food etc.

Now you can question any of these steps as you wish, i only wish to leave the words "progression" and "natural" to the descriptive general long-term trend. (e.g. death too may be avoidable, but in terms of general description, it's natural)

Edited by CPLains at 07:37 CDT, 29 July 2010

<< Comment #30 @ 07:49 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zealot - Reply to #29

humans are different from animals, we're creatures able to reason therefore able to choose. there's nothing 'natural' about how we do things and at every point in time we're able to change literally everything if we want to.
(the first example in my mind would be vegans, note: i love eating animals)

let's not forget that (social) progression happens on an individual level, every single being has to understand and agree.

yes, it is far more likely that clustering is going to happen over time, but there are still communities to which the concept is alien.
besides that clustering is one thing, commodification another. divison of labour in a non-capitalist society is possible, your example makes it look like it's not.

tl;dr technology yeahh, capitalism nooo

Edited by zealot at 07:51 CDT, 29 July 2010

<< Comment #32 @ 08:06 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #30

i'm not saying it's not possible to imagine something else. we already in literature have the mythical "elsewhere" and modern marxists call for an alternative that does not yet exist rather than the forceful implementation of a simple something else.

and no. i don't think thinking of humans at an individual level makes any sense any more. existentialism is dead and all that. a group of experts aided by computers is something very new. but that's a whole other difficult debate lol :)

<< Comment #35 @ 08:11 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #32

The other debate stems from considerations like these that you might find interesting :D

<< Comment #39 @ 08:30 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zealot - Reply to #32

i'm inclined to agree but i do not want to. individualism is like the last straw to grasp in a world full of totalitarian ideas. it's also a pretty good exit out of a bunch of dilemmas a marxist faces in current times.

i read sartre's 'being and nothingness' among other stuff by him (iirc 'existentialism is a humanism' and 'anti-semite and jew') and while i certainly feel a great deal of empathy towards him and his work he's lacking a lot in comparison to others, like adorno (who i would also classify under the marxism/individualism tag).
sartre's hegel reception for example is pretty sad, what he has going for him is having lived a life worth living - if that makes any sense :p

Edited by zealot at 08:32 CDT, 29 July 2010

<< Comment #33 @ 08:08 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #30

Have you seen the docu "century of the self"?

<< Comment #36 @ 08:14 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zealot - Reply to #33

no, but reading about it i probably should.

i lack any real knowledge in psychoanalysis, avoided freud where i could and failed to understand lacan eventhough i tried.. real hard :c

<< Comment #38 @ 08:18 CDT, 29 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CLains - Reply to #36

ya same.. lol.. not sure i even want to try, ever; there's enough of that siping in from all sides anyway :P

<< Comment #22 @ 07:27 CDT, 28 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ToyTiger

Meditation is like everything else in life, hard to learn. If somebody says he can teach it to anybody and in a limited amount of time, move along.

Okay not to bash anything, I'd recommend to study the topic in general, rather than worship one book of miracles. That always helps. When you know little you tend to be unable to tell good stuff from bad stuff, from lack of stuff to compare it to.

<< Comment #26 @ 09:17 CDT, 28 July 2010 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

alive

i don't know nothing about transcendental meditation, but the usual meditation is not hard to learn at all, anyone can learn and apply the basic principles in a few minutes, and you will still get benefits just from knowing the basics. its not hard to learn at all, unless you want to explore advanced practices i think.