corrected response below: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <olliesedwuz@...> wrote :
I agree that meditation is a great tool to have in the toolbox, but we are all different, and meditation will not make us magically suited to something we have no aptitude for or interest in. What if none of the candidates meditate, or they all do? The choice would still be made based on their record and temperament. Meditation would not be a deciding factor for me, unless hypothetically, both candidate records were substantially the same, I might then give the nod to the one who does TM. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : These assertions here about potential behavior and performance scratch at the old of the discussion here about Nature or Nurture in life which has been looked at quite a lot here on FFL both in theory and by example. But the science does well indicate that meditation is highly likely to be an integrating factor as an element in sustaining mental health and balancing well-being. From that standpoint of science everyone should be interested in whether meditation practice is in the tool kit of well-being that these candidates for this highest office in the land over us all have for themselves. Yes, this is a very pertinent question. Unless someone might be anti-science. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <olliesedwuz@...> wrote : I don't. :-) While meditation, particularly TM, may be of great benefit to all of the candidates, it doesn't outweigh experiences and record. To be successful at that level of action, an affinity for the work, and the ability to make big decisions while staying on track, are essential. Whether or not the candidates have such qualities as a result of meditation, is not as important as being able to express them, regardless. "The world is as you are, live unbounded awareness" - MMY ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Doug, there is no science that tells us someone who meditates will make a better president than someone who doesn't. And while some who promote meditation may find whether presidential candidates meditate of interest, it can't be said to be a matter of "public interest." The vast majority of voters couldn't care less. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Simply on grounds of modern science and public interest we the public should know if our Presidential candidates have learned to meditate and practice meditation regularly: Clinton, Trump, Jill Stein [Green Party}, and Gary Johnson [ Libertarian Party candidate] . ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Thanks, this is still a fair line of postmodern era science question to ask the candidates. Are any of them meditators? Actually there are four [major] candidates for US President. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : BTW, you can google Trump on TM and find that Ivanka learned TM and uses it. and Donald supports it for troops with PTSD. From: "dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 5:50 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 20 (Science) Questions for the Presidential Candidates You are appearing to be the standardbearers of the Antiquarian Party on this. Even the AMA recommends in their best practices now that people meditate. If any of the candidates had once learned to meditate, now in the last 10 years have any of the four major party candidates had their meditation practice checked for effortlessness? Sort of like candidates coming forward to show tax returns, they should not hold out on these questions. The science quite clearly indicates that this is all quite relevant to all our well-being. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : This is a rare area of agreement between Mike and me. There's no reason a presidential candidate should have a policy on meditation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Doug , Maharishi always used to say that meditation was a preparation for activity. Commuting to work, whether driving, taking a bus, biking, walking or taking a train is activity used to stabilize pure awareness . The established routine was wake up, tend to bathroom needs, meditate, get dressed, have breakfast, go to work. Evening, go home, have a cocktail, then meditate and then dinner, (just threw the cocktail in for fun) chill the evening. No one has a *right* to be paid to meditate on company time and companies don't have an obligation to provide the time or space to tend to you personal spiritual growth, even if they may benefit from it. If a company offers these things as a perk, kudos to them. When companies start getting involved with these personal matters then the next thing you know, they'll be telling you which *denomination* of meditation you must practice, TM, Mindfulness, Kriya etc etc. Next thing you know every work place becomes a dome complete with badges to be handed out and taken away and we don't need no stinkin' badges! From: "dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 20 (Science) Questions for the Presidential Candidates Guaranteeing (facilitating) quiet time meditation in the workplace or within public education is a valid science question and US Presidential candidates in this postmodern age should have well prepared science-based public policy on this. This be Constitutional Bill of Rights and inalienable right endowed by God the Unified Field Declaration of Independence material. Where be Spare-egg when we need help elucidating the science on this? You are a meditator, and have seen or kept up on the modern science around meditation? Had your meditation checked for effortlessness in recent memory? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : I'm not opposed to anyone meditating. On company time, while they are paying you? That is up to individual companies. From: "dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 20 (Science) Questions for the Presidential Candidates So in our consideration of this science and public policy question I am sensing in your response that you would not be opposed to meditating. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Any company can choose to do so if they want. It's not the governments business. From: "dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 10:16 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 20 (Science) Questions for the Presidential Candidates Q Number One: What would be your administration’s public health policy towards worker paid quiet time meditation in the workplace? Are either of them meditators? Would either of them support public school silence-based meditating/ quiet time? Not prayer, but quiet time for meditating? National education policy. Along with their answering directly some science policy questions otherwise, the science would seem to indicate a great public health benefit to children learning to meditate and meditating regularly as part of the school day. Meditating, as modern public health policy. What is their policy on this pressing issue? Are either of them opposed to meditating? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Here Are the Questions Scientists Want Our Presidential Candidates to Answer. This Should Be Fun. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/08/a_coalition_of_scientists_has_created_a_list_for_the_presidential_candidates.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/08/a_coalition_of_scientists_has_created_a_list_for_the_presidential_candidates.html Here Are the Questions Scientists Want Our Preside... http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/08/a_coalition_of_scientists_has_created_a_list_for_the_presidential_candidates.html Every election cycle, science gets the short end of the stick. So a collective of scientists—56 scientific organizations representing 10 million scient ...
