--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > i posted this original post as a joke. But with a serious point. > > > > > Something Barry touched on earlier. We take target or desired > > > > > physiological parameters as a given -- with scant > > > > > justification -- though admittedly often with basic common > > > > > sense. > > > > > > > > > > Just because brain waves become coherent, or "low-S values" > > > > > seem like a good thing, how do we know without really digging > > > > > into the research literature. Epileptics have coherent brain > > > > > wave patterns, and neurotically disturbed patients have low S- > > > > > values. So why should coherent brain waves and low S- values, or > > > > > any physiological value necessarily be "good", always, on an a > > > > > priori basis. ? And "good for everyone"? > > > > > > > > The kind of EEG coherence found during TM is most obviously found > > > > in people who report periods of transcendence during TM. > > > > > > > > IS this a good thing, or a bad thing, or just a thing? > > > > > > It may be a good thing. > > > > > > But PDA (playing davils' advocate), why are self-reports of > > > "transcendence" necessarily a good thing? maybe its a real > > > experience, maybe a repsonse the subject knows the researchers > > > want. Maybe its ull transscendence, maybe its not. Its somsething > > > the subject interprets as transcendence. Maybe they have a clear > > > interpretation, maybe not. Maybe this type of transcendence is > > > good, maybe its not. > > > > > > It CAN all becomes a self-fulfilling tautology: This coherence is > > > GOOD because it correlates with "self-reported transendence". But > > > "self-reported transendence" is GOOD because it correlates with this > > > type of coherence. > > > > There's a third "leg" to this, however, which is the > > descriptions of the experience of transcendence throughout > > history and across cultures, which have been virtually > > universally characterized as positive, and which are > > very frequently associated with a meditation practice. > > First point, Dana Sawyer, professor of Asian studies, old TMer, > smart, knowledgeable guy, would vigorously argue that spiritual > states across cultures are not the same.
It's hard to make that case for transcendence because it has no attributes; it's defined by its *absence* of attributes. > Second point, that ancient reports of x are all positive doesn not > seem to be a strong argument or position. Many ancient reports that > prayer, offering lambs unto fire, polygmany and killing the > non-faithful are all "positive. yet I don't take that as a priori > proof that they are. The reported positive nature of the experience is not itself probative; it's one piece among others. <snip> > Yes. I am not arguing that that coherence is a bad thing -- from > what we know. I don't believe I suggested you were. <snip> > We should be open to other possibilities. And always look for > end-state "goods" and not intermediary markers. For example if tm > style brain coherence subjects are shown to be more intelligent, > compassionate, flexible and creative relative to controls, then > cohenrence, IMV, would become more established as a useful and > desired condition. A lot of these, if not all of them, have been reported in studies to have been found among TMers. I'm not arguing that EEG coherence is "good" so much as pointing out that your basis for casting doubt on the whole enterprise of identifying transcendence among TMers are not entirely sound. <snip> > > If you think about it, the same applies to studies of > > dreaming. Objectively, there's no way to prove that > > sleeping people who exhibit a particular neurophysiological > > signature and, when awakened, report that they were > > dreaming, have actually been dreaming. But it wouldn't > > occur to anybody to suggest that the subject is just > > telling the researchers what they want to hear, or that > > perhaps the subject is having some other experience that > > they're mistaking for dreaming. > > I would suggest that "transcendence" has many more possible > interpretations than does the generic "dreaming" process. Um, I don't think so, given, as I said, that transcendence is defined by its absence of attributes, very much unlike dreaming. I would go so far as to say that there can *be* only one state without attributes. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/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/
