Sigh... Vaj takes a stance where he uses derogatory terms (sometimes going beyond insulting to the point of genuine libel) when describing TM researchers and you ignore his rhetoric.
I point out that Vaj ignores everything that has been published in the past 30 years, and you accuse me of trying to "score points." Well, yes, since my original statement was to counter Vaj's claims, that's all I'm trying to do is "score points" -points that counter Vaj's claims. I have no intent to educate you or Vaj or anyone else on what the latest research says when I merely assert that Vaj is wrong to ignore the latest research. You seem unable to accept this as a valid stance to take in this sub-thread: I don't care what Vaj believes or what you believe. I was merely setting the record straight concerning what Vaj has asserted about the past 30 years of TM research: it DOES exist and is being ignored by the researchers that Vaj likes to cite. Ironically, people like Fred Travis do NOT ignore the latest research on other meditation techniques. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
