--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > Sigh. Unc, all you're doing is taking sides. Vaj says "you > never show any research... no don't bother." > > Then, I show the research and you say: "but you didn't pre- > digest it for us." > > I don't have to pre-digest it for you OR Vaj. The fact that > EEG research exists that was published 30 years AFTER the > comments that Vaj cites to prove he doesn't need to look at > new research is all that is needed to prove MY point: Vaj > (and the people he likes) ignore the past 30 years of TM > research.
So you admit that your only point in this is to prove Vaj and these other researchers wrong. NOT to say anything positive about TM. That was my whole point. > You then proceed to defend Vaj's stance as though he's made > some kind of valid argument. I did nothing of the kind. I said *nothing* about that. I criticized what *you* were doing, and hypothesized the reasons why I thought you were doing it. You have just confirmed that hypothesis. You didn't really care about presenting the data from the research you cite as a way of making a case for the efficacy of TM; you cared about presenting it only as a way to "get Vaj." > It's not valid Unc. You either know it's not valid, and > are every bit as deceitful as Judy claims you are, or > are just plain stupid. Would you care to look back over my posts this morning and reread what I suggested was the intent of "defender" posts like yours and Judy's? I think I suggested that your real motivation was to try to portray TM critics as deceitful and stupid. Now you've done just that. And *I* am the one who is stupid? :-) I think I've made my point (with your help). I don't believe for a moment that you actually care about pre- senting any of this research for the benefit of those wanting to learn more about TM and why it might be good for them. I believe that you have confirmed that your only real motivation is to "get Vaj." And now me. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > Thing is, Unc, I've cited it many times. Vaj just ignores it. > > > > Seems to me that's his right. > > > > I'm going to ignore it, too, because what you posted > > *conveys no information*. It is a series of pointers > > to things that *you* feel are meaningful, but you > > haven't bothered to "do the work" to describe them, > > and why it might be worth someone else's time to > > examine them. > > > > Pick one or two of these studies that you feel are > > most important, and tell us WHY you think that. As > > it stands, you *have to know* that no one on this > > forum is going to click on any of the links provided, > > given one sentence from the Abstract and a URL. > > > > And why should they? YOU are the one with a bug up > > your butt about "proving" TM's efficacy. Most of the > > rest of us don't give a shit. If you want to make the > > case that some of this research makes a clear case > > for TM's value, describe that case and describe that > > value, in terms that might make a lay person inter- > > ested enough to read more. > > > > As it is, you provided a list that does not entice > > me to read *any* of it, and then used that list as > > the basis of a Vaj putdown: "He just ignores it." > > Well, so did I. So will almost everyone here on this > > forum. > > > > And WHY? Because you didn't "do the work" to make any > > of this sound interesting enough to us to want to read > > more. You used it only to bash Vaj. > > > > > Research on the physiological correlates of pure consciousness found > > > during TM practice: > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7045911 > > > Breath suspension during the transcendental meditation technique. > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10512549 > > > Pure consciousness: distinct phenomenological and physiological > > > correlates of "consciousness itself". > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9009807 > > > Autonomic patterns during respiratory suspensions: possible markers of > > > Transcendental Consciousness. > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10487785 > > > Autonomic and EEG patterns during eyes-closed rest and transcendental > > > meditation (TM) practice: the basis for a neural model of TM practice. > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19862565 > > > A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence, power, and > > > eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation > > > practice. > > > > > > Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure > > > consciousness outside of meditation in long-term TM meditators: > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12406612 > > > Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation > > > characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states. > > > > > > http://www.tm.org/american-psychological-association > > > Abstract for the 2007 Conference of the American Psychological > > > Association > > > Brain Integration Scale: Corroborating Language-based â¨Instruments of > > > Post-conventional Development > > > > > > Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure > > > consciousness outside of meditation in non-meditators: > > > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01007.x/full > > > Higher psycho-physiological refinement in world-class Norwegian athletes: > > > brain measures of performance capacity > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do > > > > > list the papers I won't respond." > > > > > > > > Why is it so important to you that Vaj "respond?" > > > > > > > > He *does* have a point that you keep talking about > > > > "newer research" that you never define. Seems to me > > > > that if you wanted to call people's attention to that > > > > research, you could cite and describe it, whether Vaj > > > > chooses to respond or not. > > > > > > > > In other words, you keep harping on the supposed > > > > fact that comparative studies that were...uh... > > > > not impressed with TM ignored research after 1980. > > > > But you *also* ignore this research, in that you > > > > don't cite it. You just talk about its existence, > > > > in the same way that Joe McCarthy used to wave a > > > > blank piece of paper around and say, "I have in my > > > > hand a list of 432 communists who work in the U.S. > > > > government." He never had to produce the "list," > > > > only claim it existed. So far, you seem to be in > > > > the same ballpark. > > > > > > > > Yours and Judy's replies seem to be all about *whether > > > > you can get Vaj to argue with you*. It's pretty clear > > > > that THAT is your goal, *not* any critical examination > > > > of the supposed research itself. Just sayin'. I don't > > > > see any harm in listing these studies that you feel > > > > critics are missing, do you? > > > > > > > > And, since you know in advance that most here are not > > > > going to read them because...uh...they have lives, > > > > and they're not as heavily into the "gotta defend TM" > > > > thang as you are, why don't you synopsize what you > > > > feel are the most salient points of this "newer > > > > research." Then people could get a feel for whether > > > > you are waving a blank piece of paper or one with > > > > writing on it. > > > > > > > > What Vaj does or doesn't do isn't the issue. If you > > > > are trying to establish that you have credibility and > > > > he doesn't, I'm just pointing out that you haven't > > > > accomplished that. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:00 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am speaking words and you are hearing different ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THe most interesting research on TM has all been published > > > > > > > since 1980. If evaluations of the "significance" of EEG > > > > > > > results during TM don't look at the papers published in > > > > > > > the last 30+ years, well, it is obvious that they are > > > > > > > based on 30 year old research, now isn't it? > > > > > > > > > > > > If you're speaking of some new research I haven't heard > > > > > > of then, maybe. But unless you clearly list titles of > > > > > > papers then how the hell am I supposed to know what your > > > > > > foggy allusions are referring to? I'm not asking you > > > > > > to list them - I'm really not that interested. Relaxation > > > > > > response meditation is a good thing for many people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
