Comment below: **
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I spent a month with David OJ studying the collected papers. Some > published research is better than others. One critical context to > evaluate about research is what conclusions are being drawn from > the studies. This is an area were even some good movement studies > fall down IMO. In other words, it is possible to do a good study on > improvements on a rod and frame test. It is another thing to > extrapolate that this means that mediators have a more stable internal > state of reference. > > Although I share your enthusiasm for the scientific method as a tool > to expand knowledge, I don't forget that it is always humans using > this tool. It is never practiced in purity. The TM studies are not > all on one level of reliability, published or not. David went into a > lot of detail about which tests were more rigorous than others. > Getting published is only one aspect in evaluating the credibility of > scientific research. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > "I AM THE ONLY ONE on FFL that is that open minded on the topic," > > > > > > NO. > > > > So Curtis states that he is open to scientific research. Thank God > > someone here FFL is not an anti-science freak ... **snip to end** Thanks for the insider perspective, Curtis. It seems to me that the whole universe (particularly human endeavor) is fundamentally and purely experimental in nature. You do something and something else happens; oftentimes it seems like there is a causal connection between the two events and to the degree that you like or dislike the second event you modify your behavior accordingly with the intention of either repeating or avoiding a same or similar result. The modified behavior may or may not produce the result you anticipate and you modify behavior again. All subsequent behavior and experience branch out from there. We all keep doing this throughout our lives and apparently that's the way the universe goes about its business, too. The experiment with religion that we humans are so enthralled with just seems to have a long data collection timeline compared to a human lifetime and it seems to have to go through many generations of human experimenters and many different iterations of form before enough data will have been compiled before a significant portion of the population come to a different conclusion regarding its ultimate value (even though a lot of folks have come to a provisional decision regarding its worth based on other people's recommendations). Those of us who read and post at FFL, on the other hand, have all been lucky vis-a-vis our experience with Maharishi and the TMO in that we've had the opportunity to evaluate some of the results of this religion experiment with individuals who have been represented to be the fulfilled beneficiaries of the promise of religion (Maharishi, Guru Dev, Jim, Rory, Dr. Pete, Tom, etc.). (And for purposes of this post I take it as a given that the promise of Maharishi's programs, including his meditation, is the fulfillment of the standard promises of religion; not only his initial message with the SRM but even at the peak of the scientific charts and the Merv Griffin wave of initiations, that was spoken of openly and clearly; and the current use of language re the will of God is also a reiteration of that.) It seems to boil down to one of two different metrics in evaluating the worth of religion (including TM as either a component of one's independent religious practice, or as the necessary component of the quasi-Hindu TMO religion): either, (1) how it makes you feel on the inside (including the body), or (2) how it makes you act on the outside. My own experience to date is that is makes me feel fine on the inside and feel that I'm a better actor and a better person in the world at large, as well. However, it seems clear that some folks who claim the the interior benefits don't act in the world in a way that I'd recommend anyone emulate. Consequently, I'd have to go with goodness, compassion, peacefulness and charity as being in the long run the better metric for the world at large. I have clients whose experiences on illicit drugs rival anything I've experienced in meditation or after (and the compelling nature of those experiences argue convincingly for their authenticity) but whose outward behavior is a source of ultimate distress for themselves and the world around them. Good experiences but bad behavior. Like many here who have taught and promoted TM in the past, I was ready, willing and able to be less than candid or truthful about the TMO or its programs if I felt that the ultimate result would be that someone would learn meditation or continue meditation based on what I told them. I look back on that now and regret having bought into that mindset. That was an incorrect choice and bad behavior on my part. There are times when perfect candor may be inappropriate but for the most part honesty and transparency is better, particularly in promoting a program for the upliftment of society. To the degree Maharishi or anyone in the TMO has departed from that, then to that degree I feel that they have devalued their stated purpose and have failed. Marek
