--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 23, 2006, at 9:34 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > Well, first, we'd need to know what MMY *actually* > > said, rather than your version of it. > > > > Second, what Wilber was debunking was the idea of > > creating *electrons* (by which I assume he meant > > elementary particles generally), not molecules. > > Molecules are two steps beyond elementary particles: > > they're arrangements of atoms, which are in turn > > arrangements of particles. > > Well you have to understand what he's referring to here Judy--it's > that the measurement/observation process at a quantum level > affects the material world. It's this idea he's debunking using > this example, that we modify reality, physical reality, with > observation. This idea is not restricted to the discussion of > the "gap" between the physical and "unified field" but also the > TMSP where attention is allegedly applied to get the unified field > to manifest something--to somehow modify reality. The Maharishi > Effect might be a good example.
I understand what Wilber is referring to, but I'm not sure you do. >From the summary you posted: "Ken goes on to suggest that what might be influencing quantum realities is not Suchness per se, but bio-energy or prana, which may be the source of the crackling, buzzing, electric creativity that so many theorists have tried to explain at the quantum level." > > Again, we'd have to know exactly what MMY said, but > > it isn't inconceivable he meant the molecules were > > built from particles that were already available. > > > > Finally, at what point did MMY use this notion as > > a "sales ploy" for TM? > > Quantum physics is constantly used as a marketing ploy for the > TMO. No, you used "Substance M" as an example. I'm asking when MMY used that notion as a "sales ploy" for TM. > It's been used for the siddhis, the doshas, TM, the TMSP, higher > states of consciousness, world peace, economics, etc. It's a long > list. > > Since you already claim to believe much of this, it's senseless > for me to try to convince you otherwise. See, this is why it's hard to take seriously anything you say about what somebody else has said or what they meant. Not only have I not claimed to "believe much of this," I said explicitly only that I found certain premises *plausible*. About others I've said explicitly only that I *don't rule them out*. And you've translated this in your mind into my having "claimed to believe" these things. Remarkable. Oh, and moreover, you say it's "senseless" to try to convince me the TMO uses quantum physics for marketing purposes, yet I've never suggested it does *not* do precisely this. And to complete the absurdity, you claim I wouldn't believe the TMO doesn't use quantum physics in its marketing *because I have claimed to believe what it says about quantum physics*. (Which, of course, I have not.) I mean, Vaj, if you can get what I've said in a few relatively simple, straightforward posts of mine so thoroughly confused, how in heaven's name do you expect anybody to think you can get something as complicated as quantum mechanics vis-a-vis spirituality straight? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
