[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > > > > > > > --- sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > There are plenty of scenarios where any number of > > > states might have "no qualities" that > > > one can remember. If you can't remember any > > > qualities, than its a state without qualities. > > > > And pure consciousness has no "qualities". It is > > "outside" of the mind. The mind can only appreciate > > pure consciousness as emptiness. > > > > Actually, technically, the claim is that Pure Consciousness has three qualities though these > aren't experienceable per se: Sat-chit-ananda... > FWIW, 'sat' is an "interesting" word. I think it's the neuter singular nominative form of the present participle of the verb 'as' (to be). Thus, the closest English equivalent would, I guess, be 'being'. One might expect it to be 'asat', but several other forms of that verb drop the initial 'a', for instance, 'asmi'([I] am), but 'santi' ([they] are). Thus, 'asat', "of course", is the opposite of 'sat', prolly to be translated literally to 'non-being', or stuff. IMO, the coolest sentence those two words appear in a Vedic text is the first line of Rgveda X 129 (Hymn of Creation): naasadaasiinno sadaasiittadaaniim (without sandhi: na; asat; aasiit; na; u; sat; aasiit; tadaaniim) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > There are plenty of scenarios where any number of > > states might have "no qualities" that > > one can remember. If you can't remember any > > qualities, than its a state without qualities. > > And pure consciousness has no "qualities". It is > "outside" of the mind. The mind can only appreciate > pure consciousness as emptiness. > Actually, technically, the claim is that Pure Consciousness has three qualities though these aren't experienceable per se: Sat-chit-ananda... 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are plenty of scenarios where any number of > states might have "no qualities" that > one can remember. If you can't remember any > qualities, than its a state without qualities. And pure consciousness has no "qualities". It is "outside" of the mind. The mind can only appreciate pure consciousness as emptiness. > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ~--> > Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See > the new email design. > http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/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 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > But at a certain point, Occam's razor comes into play; > > > > > the "different experience" premise may "multiply > > > > > entities beyond necessity." The explanation that the > > > > > TMers are experiencing the same thing as what is > > > > > reported in the historical literature is simpler than > > > > > one that posits two completely different types of > > > > > experience that are described the same way. > > > > > > > > Ironically, I'm starting to suspect that there IS the > possibility > > > that different meditation > > > > techniques, rather than eventually inducing the same state, are > > > actually inducing different > > > > states that can be described the same way. > > > > > > How could there possibly be more than one state with > > > no attributes? > > > > PHysiological state may not be exactly the same as mental state. > > PTSD-related rerealization can sound just like TM-style > > enlightenment, for example, but there appear to > > be radically different brain mechanisms behind them. > > Yes, but neither derealization nor TM-style enlightenment > is a state with no attributes, since both include the > ordinary waking state (and in the case of derealization, > that may be *all* that's included). > > I'm talking *only* about transcendental consciousness > by itself. > There are plenty of scenarios where any number of states might have "no qualities" that one can remember. If you can't remember any qualities, than its a state without qualities. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > I would say that the same phenomenon would be present > > in research on any technique of meditation in which > > the meditators were devoted practitioners of the > > technique being "researched." They already know what > > they're hoping to find, and thus they "find" it. > > That should have been: > > ...in which the *researchers* were devoted practitioners... > > I just don't understand why anyone would take "research" > seriously that is undertaken by someone who obviously > wants that research to turn out a certain way. Too much > of the TM "research" is sadly in the same category as > studies on smoking paid for by the tobacco industry. Again, a great deal of scientific research is undertaken by those who would like it to come out a certain way. Until it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal and evaluated by the scientific community, *no* research should be taken seriously. But just as research that hasn't gone through this process should not be assumed to be valid, so it should not be assumed *not* to be valid. Somehow I have the feeling that you would take research concluding that TM isn't effective or has awful negative side-effects quite seriously even if it hasn't yet gone through the reviewing process. It wouldn't even cross your mind to ask whether the researchers wanted it to "come out a certain way." Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > But at a certain point, Occam's razor comes into play; > > > the "different experience" premise may "multiply > > > entities beyond necessity." The explanation that the > > > TMers are experiencing the same thing as what is > > > reported in the historical literature is simpler than > > > one that posits two completely different types of > > > experience that are described the same way. > > > > Ironically, I'm starting to suspect that there IS the > > possibility that different meditation techniques, rather > > than eventually inducing the same state, are actually > > inducing different states that can be described the same way. > > We finally agree on something. I would say that the > number of possible 'states' to be measured is at > least the same as the number of people being tested, > and is probably higher, because each meditator is > capable of producing multiple states. > > The desire to make it *seem* as if this is one state > that can be measured with any accuracy is a factor > of the belief system driving the "research." Of course, what I'm saying doesn't contradict your notion (whether it's true or not). But what *you're* saying is self-contradictory if you're including transcendental-consciousness-by- itself. Once again, your eagerness to bash MMY and TMers has led you to ignore the context and as a result come up with utter nonsense. That's > what Maharishi wants to prove, so that's what the > researchers are looking for. And when they look for > something hard enough, and know that their ability to > get "strokes" from their teacher is completely depen- > dent on what it appears that they found, they tend to > "find" exactly what Maharishi wanted found. > > I would say that the same phenomenon would be present > in research on any technique of meditation in which > the meditators were devoted practitioners of the > technique being "researched." They already know what > they're hoping to find, and thus they "find" it. > 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > > > But at a certain point, Occam's razor comes into play; > > > > the "different experience" premise may "multiply > > > > entities beyond necessity." The explanation that the > > > > TMers are experiencing the same thing as what is > > > > reported in the historical literature is simpler than > > > > one that posits two completely different types of > > > > experience that are described the same way. > > > > > > Ironically, I'm starting to suspect that there IS the possibility > > that different meditation > > > techniques, rather than eventually inducing the same state, are > > actually inducing different > > > states that can be described the same way. > > > > How could there possibly be more than one state with > > no attributes? > > PHysiological state may not be exactly the same as mental state. > PTSD-related rerealization can sound just like TM-style > enlightenment, for example, but there appear to > be radically different brain mechanisms behind them. Yes, but neither derealization nor TM-style enlightenment is a state with no attributes, since both include the ordinary waking state (and in the case of derealization, that may be *all* that's included). I'm talking *only* about transcendental consciousness by itself. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > I would say that the same phenomenon would be present > > in research on any technique of meditation in which > > the meditators were devoted practitioners of the > > technique being "researched." They already know what > > they're hoping to find, and thus they "find" it. > > That should have been: > > ...in which the *researchers* were devoted practitioners... > > I just don't understand why anyone would take "research" > seriously that is undertaken by someone who obviously > wants that research to turn out a certain way. Too much > of the TM "research" is sadly in the same category as > studies on smoking paid for by the tobacco industry. > The TM researchers I know are a bit more skeptical than you seem to think. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would say that the same phenomenon would be present > in research on any technique of meditation in which > the meditators were devoted practitioners of the > technique being "researched." They already know what > they're hoping to find, and thus they "find" it. That should have been: ...in which the *researchers* were devoted practitioners... I just don't understand why anyone would take "research" seriously that is undertaken by someone who obviously wants that research to turn out a certain way. Too much of the TM "research" is sadly in the same category as studies on smoking paid for by the tobacco industry. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > [...] > > > > But at a certain point, Occam's razor comes into play; > > the "different experience" premise may "multiply > > entities beyond necessity." The explanation that the > > TMers are experiencing the same thing as what is > > reported in the historical literature is simpler than > > one that posits two completely different types of > > experience that are described the same way. > > Ironically, I'm starting to suspect that there IS the > possibility that different meditation techniques, rather > than eventually inducing the same state, are actually > inducing different states that can be described the same way. We finally agree on something. I would say that the number of possible 'states' to be measured is at least the same as the number of people being tested, and is probably higher, because each meditator is capable of producing multiple states. The desire to make it *seem* as if this is one state that can be measured with any accuracy is a factor of the belief system driving the "research." That's what Maharishi wants to prove, so that's what the researchers are looking for. And when they look for something hard enough, and know that their ability to get "strokes" from their teacher is completely depen- dent on what it appears that they found, they tend to "find" exactly what Maharishi wanted found. I would say that the same phenomenon would be present in research on any technique of meditation in which the meditators were devoted practitioners of the technique being "researched." They already know what they're hoping to find, and thus they "find" it. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > But at a certain point, Occam's razor comes into play; > > > the "different experience" premise may "multiply > > > entities beyond necessity." The explanation that the > > > TMers are experiencing the same thing as what is > > > reported in the historical literature is simpler than > > > one that posits two completely different types of > > > experience that are described the same way. > > > > Ironically, I'm starting to suspect that there IS the possibility > that different meditation > > techniques, rather than eventually inducing the same state, are > actually inducing different > > states that can be described the same way. > > How could there possibly be more than one state with > no attributes? > PHysiological state may not be exactly the same as mental state. PTSD-related rerealization can sound just like TM-style enlightenment, for example, but there appear to be radically different brain mechanisms behind them. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > [...] > > > > But at a certain point, Occam's razor comes into play; > > the "different experience" premise may "multiply > > entities beyond necessity." The explanation that the > > TMers are experiencing the same thing as what is > > reported in the historical literature is simpler than > > one that posits two completely different types of > > experience that are described the same way. > > Ironically, I'm starting to suspect that there IS the possibility that different meditation > techniques, rather than eventually inducing the same state, are actually inducing different > states that can be described the same way. How could there possibly be more than one state with no attributes? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > But at a certain point, Occam's razor comes into play; > the "different experience" premise may "multiply > entities beyond necessity." The explanation that the > TMers are experiencing the same thing as what is > reported in the historical literature is simpler than > one that posits two completely different types of > experience that are described the same way. Ironically, I'm starting to suspect that there IS the possibility that different meditation techniques, rather than eventually inducing the same state, are actually inducing different states that can be described the same way. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning 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. > > Remeber I said "We take target or desired > physiological parameters as a given -- with scant justification -- > though admittedly often with basic common sense." > > I am not arguing against common sense. I am advocating celebrating > when some REAL GOOD is found via a practice, not some intermediary, > tautological "marker". > The practice of TM has various health benefits according to various peer-reviewed studies done by teams of meditating and non-meditating researchers. TM appears to have more effect on many such measures than simple relaxation. Unlike TM, simple relaxation doesn't appear to induce EEG coherence and/or reports of transcending *at all* or at least very, VERY seldom. The implication is that the unique physiological marker associated with transcending, to whatever degree one experiences it at any given time, is associated with the health benefits. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > > 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. > Yes. I am not arguing that that coherence is a bad thing -- from > what we know. I don't believe I suggested you were. > 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. > > 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 --
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > 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. 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. Given points one and two, I am not sure I attach as much importance to this third leg as do you. > It's *possible* that the experience TMers call > "transcendence," which has been found to be highly > correlated to a specific neurophysiological signature > (including EEG)--so it's not just a response the subject > knows the researchers want--is a completely different > experience, even though the TMers describe it using > terms that are strikingly similar to those used in these > historical reports, and even though the meditators > virtually universally characterize it as positive, as > do the historical reports (and the TMers' impression that > it is positive is backed up by other studies of the > results of the practice). > > But at a certain point, Occam's razor comes into play; > the "different experience" premise may "multiply > entities beyond necessity." The explanation that the > TMers are experiencing the same thing as what is > reported in the historical literature is simpler than > one that posits two completely different types of > experience that are described the same way. > > > Remeber I said "We take target or desired > > physiological parameters as a given -- with scant justification -- > > though admittedly often with basic common sense." > > In this case, I'd suggest that "basic common sense" is > equivalent to Occam's razor. Yes. I am not arguing that that coherence is a bad thing -- from what we know. I am simply suggesting that it, and more to the point, intermediary markers that are less established, a best guess hypthothesis at this point. 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. Some, in florida perhaps -- must be the humidity -- I know are screaming, "WTF do these qualities have to do with enlightenment?" Precisely. If you tie coherence to enlightenment, and yet enlightenement offers no discernible value (the position of Scott Foreman? -- professor, author, old TMer), then I have to ask, why is the c
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning 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. It's *possible* that the experience TMers call "transcendence," which has been found to be highly correlated to a specific neurophysiological signature (including EEG)--so it's not just a response the subject knows the researchers want--is a completely different experience, even though the TMers describe it using terms that are strikingly similar to those used in these historical reports, and even though the meditators virtually universally characterize it as positive, as do the historical reports (and the TMers' impression that it is positive is backed up by other studies of the results of the practice). But at a certain point, Occam's razor comes into play; the "different experience" premise may "multiply entities beyond necessity." The explanation that the TMers are experiencing the same thing as what is reported in the historical literature is simpler than one that posits two completely different types of experience that are described the same way. > Remeber I said "We take target or desired > physiological parameters as a given -- with scant justification -- > though admittedly often with basic common sense." In this case, I'd suggest that "basic common sense" is equivalent to Occam's razor. > I am not arguing against common sense. I am advocating celebrating > when some REAL GOOD is found via a practice, not some intermediary, > tautological "marker". EEG coherence isn't tautological given the third "leg" of the historical reports. 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. The only real difference is that the vast majority of human beings report that they dream, whereas that is not the case with transcendence. But the Occam's razor principle applies in both cases. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning 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. Remeber I said "We take target or desired physiological parameters as a given -- with scant justification -- though admittedly often with basic common sense." I am not arguing against common sense. I am advocating celebrating when some REAL GOOD is found via a practice, not some intermediary, tautological "marker". Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 15, 2006, at 2:09 PM, new.morning wrote: > > >> > >> http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/4/347 > >> This study attempted to follow up this finding and > >> hypothesized that a group of neurotically disturbed patients would > >> have a higher S value and a group of individuals who practiced a > >> calming technique such as transcendental meditation (TM) would have a > >> lower S value than normal subjects. The second hypothesis was > >> confirmed, but not the first, in that the neurotically disturbed > >> patients had the lowest mean values for S of the three groups, rather > >> than the highest. > > > > TM makes one more neurotically disturbed? > > > > Well this list may be living proof. :) > > > Sad but interesting. > > I wonder, if by comparison "2nd generation TM techniques", like the > Sudarshan Kriya + Advanced TM technique meditation would have > different results or not. Well, now I know it's TM's fault; and I thought I was neurotic, because of my neurotic family? What a relief... Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
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"? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 15, 2006, at 2:09 PM, new.morning wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/4/347 > > >> This study attempted to follow up this finding and > > >> hypothesized that a group of neurotically disturbed patients > > >> would have a higher S value and a group of individuals who > > >> practiced a calming technique such as transcendental meditation > > >> (TM) would have a lower S value than normal subjects. The second > > >> hypothesis was confirmed, but not the first, in that the > > >> neurotically disturbed patients had the lowest mean values for S > > >> of the three groups, rather than the highest. > > > > > > TM makes one more neurotically disturbed? > > > > > > Well this list may be living proof. :) > > > > Sad but interesting. > > Interesting, but not, of course, the least bit sad. > Too bad, Vaj. > > The results did not show that "TM makes one more > neurotically disturbed." Rather, it showed that > depressed patients have a different response to CO2 > than was hypothesized on the basis of previous > studies. (Note that the TMers' response was in > accord with the hypothesis.) > > And especially not sad if you bother to read the > rest of the abstract: > > "Particular characteristics of the sample of psychiatric patients > cast doubt, however, on the validity of this finding. Three > additional findings of this study were that anxious, depressive, and > hyperventilating subject groups were no different from one another in > terms of S values; that very experienced TM practitioners (sidhas) > could significantly lower their ventilatory response to CO2 in the > meditating state as compared to the nonmeditating alert state; and > that the S value did not increase in two male subjects with > endogenous depression after successful treatment with > electroconvulsive therapy." > > > I wonder, if by comparison "2nd generation TM techniques", like > > the Sudarshan Kriya + Advanced TM technique meditation would have > > different results or not. > > Hands, please: How many think Vaj was genuinely > confused about the results of the study and really > believed it meant TM makes one more neurotically > disturbed? > 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 15, 2006, at 2:09 PM, new.morning wrote: > > >> > >> http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/4/347 > >> This study attempted to follow up this finding and > >> hypothesized that a group of neurotically disturbed patients > >> would have a higher S value and a group of individuals who > >> practiced a calming technique such as transcendental meditation > >> (TM) would have a lower S value than normal subjects. The second > >> hypothesis was confirmed, but not the first, in that the > >> neurotically disturbed patients had the lowest mean values for S > >> of the three groups, rather than the highest. > > > > TM makes one more neurotically disturbed? > > > > Well this list may be living proof. :) > > Sad but interesting. Interesting, but not, of course, the least bit sad. Too bad, Vaj. The results did not show that "TM makes one more neurotically disturbed." Rather, it showed that depressed patients have a different response to CO2 than was hypothesized on the basis of previous studies. (Note that the TMers' response was in accord with the hypothesis.) And especially not sad if you bother to read the rest of the abstract: "Particular characteristics of the sample of psychiatric patients cast doubt, however, on the validity of this finding. Three additional findings of this study were that anxious, depressive, and hyperventilating subject groups were no different from one another in terms of S values; that very experienced TM practitioners (sidhas) could significantly lower their ventilatory response to CO2 in the meditating state as compared to the nonmeditating alert state; and that the S value did not increase in two male subjects with endogenous depression after successful treatment with electroconvulsive therapy." > I wonder, if by comparison "2nd generation TM techniques", like > the Sudarshan Kriya + Advanced TM technique meditation would have > different results or not. Hands, please: How many think Vaj was genuinely confused about the results of the study and really believed it meant TM makes one more neurotically disturbed? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM makes one more neurotically disturbed?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/4/347 > >This study attempted to follow up this finding and > > hypothesized that a group of neurotically disturbed patients would > > have a higher S value and a group of individuals who practiced a > > calming technique such as transcendental meditation (TM) would have a > > lower S value than normal subjects. The second hypothesis was > > confirmed, but not the first, in that the neurotically disturbed > > patients had the lowest mean values for S of the three groups, rather > > than the highest. > > TM makes one more neurotically disturbed? > > Well this list may be living proof. :)>. This study verifies benifits of TM . Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/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/
