> <paste> "Several things are (in) play here: > > First we have Maharishi vedic science Which is an ancient set of beliefs that > is undergoing validation predominantly by the TM organization over the last > 35 to 40 years. Even though this is an ancient science the fact that it is > undergoing contemporary validation by western science and technology places > it in the category of a proto science, see the following definition." > <end of paste>.
<more paste> Protoscience refers to historical philosophical disciplines which existed prior to the development of scientific method, which allowed them to develop into science proper (see prescientific). A standard example is that of alchemy which later became chemistry, or that of astrology which later became astronomy. By extension, "protoscience" may be used in reference to any "set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science, [thus being] a new science working to establish itself as legitimate science http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Science http://en.wiktionary.org:80/wiki/prescientific http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Alchemy http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Chemistry http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Astrology http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Astronomy <end> > > > > Om > > Yet there are evidently some good folks in the middle and for some time now, > nobody here much really defending or explaining the thinking inside. FFL > crossfire can makes it hard to stand up at times. > > I figured there are some thinking folks there inside so I sent an e-mail over > to someone inside asking what they think and got this back. I like the > insight. Is kind of one-sided here on FFL but evidently there is also > thinking and work going on inside too. I likes the insight to that otherside > too. Even if they are cultists in their way. > > <paste> "Several things are a play here: > > First we have Maharishi vedic science Which is an ancient set of beliefs that > is undergoing validation predominantly by the TM organization over the last > 35 to 40 years. Even though this is an ancient science the fact that it is > undergoing contemporary validation by western science and technology places > it in the category of a proto science, see the following definition. > <end of paste>. > > JGD, > -D > > >with American University on the TM® technique and College Stress > > > http://blog.silentadministration.org/2009/03/transcendental-meditation-reduces.h\ > tml > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "guyfawkes91" <guyfawkes91@> wrote: > > > > Fred is probably one of the few people in the TMO doing a useful job. Shame > that MUM will fold sometime in the next 20 years because they can't get the > staff. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 2009, at 12:45 AM, guyfawkes91 wrote: > > > > > > > If CERN doesn't find a Higgs Boson then unified field theories are > > > > in big trouble. If people stop believing that there's a unified > > > > field theory then what happens to the explanations about the ME? > > > > > > > > > What seems to have gone mostly unnoticed, probably largely due to the > > > success with which TM spin pulls wool over eyes, is that legitimate > > > neuroscientists are on to the coherence boondoggle. For many years > > > people simply accepted the assertion that alpha coherence during TM > > > was something significant. It sure sounded important, so it must be! > > > It turns out, in regards to "higher", more integrated states of > > > consciousness, alpha coherence in the range seen in long-term TMers > > > is still within the range of coherence seen in Joe or Jane non- > > > meditator off the street! So there's really no coherence worth noting > > > so far with TM--although other advanced meditators do show different > > > types of coherence which are remarkable in some ways. In general > > > coherence as a measurement of phaselocking in brainwaves is now an > > > obsolete measurement as better methods to measure synchrony have come > > > to the fore. > > > > > >
