--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: <snip> > > Well, most people who push the Consciousness as teh Unified > > Field idea don't understand Hagelin's writings about it. For > > that matter, those that COULD understand Hagelin's ideas > > about it, haven't read his more serious essays on the subject. > > > > Have you? I mean the original math-laden papers, not the "What > > the Bleep" sound bites, or the lectures he gives to the TM > > faithful at MUM. > > The lectures he gives to the faithful are the same stuff he > tries to get published aren't they?
Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) > Or if you think that isn't the case you'd > better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? You have to be kidding. You can't give an advanced physics lecture to people who aren't well schooled in physics. > I heard that Lawrence Domash said to MMY about no-one knowing if > consciousness was the UF and MMY said "WE are the leaders of this > field" How far would any of them have got in the TMO if they'd put > their foot down and said let's stick to the facts? What are you supposed to do if you have a new fact nobody else knows about yet? Discard it? <snip> > Do you honestly think the rest of the scientific world are > trailing in his wake? He comes over as a nice guy but he has > clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data > on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble > prize. Er, the data for the D.C. study were from public records. You weren't aware of that?
