Two excellent posts. My comments to both below, interspersed: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Comment below: > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> 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.
Indeed. If it were *just* doing the research and allowing 1) other researchers to become intrigued enough to want to replicate it, or 2) allowing other people to draw their *own* conclusions from it, that would be cool. That is not the case with the TM research. Noooooo. It has to be *spun* to "prove" the decades-old claims and the centuries-old dogma. The classic case is this latest "press release" for the "meta-study." It was almost certainly written by someone who has never practiced any other technique of meditation other than TM, and who would be supremely uncomfortable if he had to be in the same room with someone who practiced another technique. And what does is SAY? What "conclusions" does it draw from the "meta-study," however valuable some of the individual studies might be? Well, duh...it says that "TM is the best." It is designed to *force* a conclusion that is not necessarily present in the data, and to use that conclusion to sell a product with a hefty price tag. While some of the research may be both rigorous and valuable, the *uses* to which it is put by the TM movement are neither. They are instances of True Believers trying to force square pegs into round holes, and trying to sell more square pegs to others. > > --- 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. EXCELLENT analysis, Marek. That's it in a nutshell. The claims being made here on FFL and by the TM movement seem based on Door Number One, with little or no value placed on Door Number Two. The TMO will do the occasional study extrapolating the results of a psychological test to claim that TMers develop better social interactions with others, but will then ignore *their own daily environments*, in which people often act exactly the way we see people act (some of them claiming enlightenment) on FFL. They'll make big speeches about "all is Brahman" and then spend the rest of the post declaring their superiority over others here, and telling them that they'll understand it all when they get as evolved as they are. People like Off and Nablus will be as abusive and low-vibe as humans can *be*, and then in the next breath call others here stupid or demons or ignorant or unevolved or "anti-science" for the crime of simply disagreeing with them. There is a profound *disconnect* here, in which folks seem to have been trained to believe that how TM makes them feel on the inside "trumps" anything they do on the outside, or that the latter *just doesn't matter*. It does. And that is where the claims of the TMO not only don't stand up to investigation, but invite howls of laughter. When an organization that deals with dissent and non-adherence to dogma by basically excommunicating anyone who goes there claims that its techniques result in "perfect behavior," I'm sorry, but that's laughable. > 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. Hear, hear. TMers often react to stories about the amazing com- passion shown by Tibetan Buddhist monks with, "That's just moodmaking." Well, give me a mood-making monk who really walks the talk of his dogma any day over a hypocritical TMer who doesn't any day. > 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. Tell me about it. The TM movement is almost *built upon* "the ends justify the means." It starts with exaggerating benefits and ignoring or pooh-poohing any drawbacks, but as anyone who has been in the TM movement for a while can attest, escalates to being able to justify carrying suitcases of cash illegally across international borders, fucking other people's wives and breaking up marriages, throwing your best friend out of the dome and never speaking to him again because he went to see another spiritual teacher, and any number of other travesties. Again, the "inner experience" -- whether real or mood-made, "trumps" any societal or even religious ideal of acceptable behavior. > 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. It's the argument that long-term TM apologists here avoid most often -- "If TM is so great and brings about perfect individuals in a perfect society, why are the day-to-day actions of the TM movement and its 100% TMer communities often so *fucked up*? Given their advertising, MUM should be a model of efficiency, tolerance, and intelligence. Is it? Given the claims of "bestness," anyone who "strayed" away from TM and tried other techniques should shortly come running back home to the "better" technique. Does this tend to happen? > 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. I agree. And I apply it much further than simply TM, which after all, is just another minor technique of meditation, barely a blip on the centuries-old radar of spiritual teaching. I think that the teachers who have made contributions to making meditation popular and acceptable who *then* lower its credibility by acting in ways that are unacceptable to almost *anyone* have failed. What TMers fail to realize is that when they see the world based on Door Number One (their own inner exper- ience) and make extravagant claims based on that inner experience, they are *talking to* people who have not *had* those experiences, and who will cut them no slack if they don't live up to Door Number Two (how they act on the outside). IMO, the reaction of the general public is actually a pretty good measure of how reality-based a spiritual teaching is. If they hear the claims of inner benefits and see the same outer benefits in the claimants, then they react positively, and may wish to find out more. If they notice a strong *disparity* between the claims and the behavior, then they react negatively, with laughter or derision. And IMO they are RIGHT to do so. The *idea* of using science to verify inner experience, proposed by the TM movement, was a good one. The way it was done, and the uses to which the resulting "science" was put to use were not. They deserve all the laughter and derision we can muster up.
