--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 10/13/08, enlightened_dawn11 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > From: enlightened_dawn11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: URGENT MESSAGE FROM RAJA HAGELIN
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Monday, October 13, 2008, 6:47 PM
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
> > <vajradhatu@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > On Oct 13, 2008, at 6:26 PM, Peter wrote:
> > > 
> > > > You know when a science is no longer a science
> > and just dogma? 
> > When  
> > > > there is no way to disprove the theory which is
> > the higher-
> > order  
> > > > explanation for the empirical evidence. Let's
> > see, our self-
> > chosen  
> > > > criteria for quantifying the ME go up. Well,
> > we're responsible 
> > for  
> > > > that. These self-same criteria go down, well,
> > we're responsible 
> > for  
> > > > that too, but now we have a brand new ad hoc
> > explanation as to 
> > why  
> > > > they go down: phase transition. Notice the a
> > priori assumption 
> > that  
> > > > the ME is an absolute given and the ad hoc
> > explanation is to  
> > > > rationalize the contradictory evidence away.
> > > >
> > > > I'd love to ask John, "You state that
> > the ME is a scientific 
> > theory  
> > > > which means it is open to nullification. So,
> > John, what 
> > empirical  
> > > > findings would nullify the ME?"
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Very well said.
> > >
> > it is quite interesting that the Maharishi used to say
> > "through the -
> > window- of science, we see the dawn of the age of
> > enlightenment". He 
> > didn't say, "...through science, we see...".
> 
> The point here is that the TMO keeps on claiming a scientifically 
provable effect called the ME. All real science claims can be 
nullified if evidence does not support the hypothesis. The problem 
with the ME is that absolutely nothing can occur that would nullify 
it!This is not science. Stop calling it science. Its dogma, which is 
fine, but stop pretending its science.
> > 

I am not calling the ME science, whatever the TM Org may call it. 
The ME as I see it is an instrument of faith; a calculation based on 
the perception of the heart. 

Reply via email to