It is an amazing opportunity for a soul, for consciousness incarnate to have, to get a human lifetime. Spirituality may not be someone’s ontological sense of experience but okay the global climate change science becomes this sobering spiritual reminder as we look at it in contrast to so much of rampant materialism and development of the modern world since 1870 that is so related to the atmosphere of global climate change. It is an amazingly narrow atmospheric bandwidth that we human kind (& multicellular life) can exist in and live in on earth (basic 8th grade earth science). The adage for humanity then comes, “Make hay while the sun shines”, spirituality comes up in to mind. Now comes a time to do what you know to do, the ‘knowers of reality’, to meditate, meditate, meditate. Not just some consciousness development but cultivate the spiritual soul, in the heart of a human incarnation in life. This then gets pointed to as an action in life, while you have a life.
Yes, what we are finding with this, with the global climate science, is that people seem to turn to their spiritual state as they face more certainly with their mortality. It is interesting to see how people come to spiritual matters as they come to understand the circumstance of such the magnitude of change portended by the science. Archonangel writes: Some doubt is necessary to make intelligent decisions. Not enough, you are a sucker, and too much and you lose out. I am well aware of what spiritual practice in my life has and has not done. Clearly meditating is not going to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But would it result in people actually working on ways to remove it and to stop current pollution? People are working on this even without meditating. Spiritual groups are prone to "magical thinking" which is just another way of saying you have impractical daydreams. Your second sentence does not make any sense in terms of resolving climate change but relates to enlightenment, making hay while the sun shines. That is working to enlightenment, which is a different activity than fixing the climate. The evidence that enlightenment will bring about desired changes is not nearly so convincing as true believers would have us think. It might be better to work on the problem from a platform of spiritual ignorance. When you are ignorant spiritually, you fear things, and if you fear climate change, then maybe motivated to do something about it. If enlightened, climate change and the human turmoil surrounding it is just the next experience in a series of seemingly unending experiences in the field of experience (consciousness) and is just what is. Because the individual is surrendered, the solution is in the hands of nature, so the question becomes what is nature going to do? Five or six times, life has been seriously compromised on Earth. Planets seem plentiful around stars, yet stars explode and destroy planets. Who you gonna call? You have control over action alone, never its fruits. That means even if you meditate, the result is not up to you. You do not even have control over your potential enlightenment, it is out of your hands. Do I have to be concerned about climate change? The devastating predictions, if true, will come after this body is dead and gone. And now we have people in government, who cannot comprehend the vast body of scientific research on climate change. How would you expect them to understand the piddling small studies about consciousness and its potential relationship with human behavior and intelligence? Some ‘in the mind’ intellectualizing may doubt the spiritual life for some lack of experience and may disrespect the effect of spiritual practice in life. But no, the question is not necessarily how could consciousness sequester carbon from the atmosphere given the face of the global climate change science but it quickly becomes what is someone, anyone, doing with a human lifetime while they have it as while resident in the human species for a moment while this species exists on earth? archonangel wrote : While you are proposing meditation as a solution to this, you have not specified just how meditation will result in the desired changes. A paradigm shift does not explain how that shift will induce the desired result. First, greenhouse gases will stay at current levels even if emissions are stopped, and no reasonable and practical way to remove the gases from the atmosphere has come forward. Enlightenment means that you know you, and everything else, is unbounded awareness, but that does not solve the problem. Meditation seems to have a rather poor record for producing enlightened human beings, almost everyone seems to be trucking along short of the goal. If the paradigm shift of enlightenment is so rare, how can you expect it to have an influence on climate? If you are ignorant and stupid, and you meditate, you stay ignorant and stupid for a long time even if you eventually succeed. Smart people often do not even appreciate the value of a meditation system, so those that could be the most useful in solving the problem of climate change often will not even be interested in sitting around in silence or practicing other kinds of techniques. "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi went on a world tour in 1976 in which he inaugurated on all five continents the Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment. Maharishi stated that the Age of Enlightenment was dependent upon nothing. He stated that it would occur whether we wanted it or didn't want it. He stated that 'Through the window of science' he could see that this was coming and that it was his privilege to be able to inaugurate its dawn in this manner." So why do we have runaway climate change? It has been almost four and a half decades since this inauguration, and the human race still seems as ignorant and stupid as ever, even more so. The paradigm shift seems to be in the wrong direction. On Wednesday, July 4, 2018, 2:53:24 PM GMT, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Clearly, as we are in the face now of runaway global climate change live with urgency. Jai Guru Dev, . FW mail: ..In such a science-based and spiritual community as ours, where we have had decades of frustrating experience in attempting to have other scientists appreciate the Paradigm changing research that was peer published in scientific journals about Transcendental Meditation and the TM Siddhi's Program, it is our hope that our professors and scientists, and community are willing and open minded enough to accept the validity of another Paradigm changing concept, that paradigm change being the imminent unstoppable near-term annihilation of the global human habitat based on copious volumes of peer-reviewed published research. Paradigm Change: Runaway Global Climate Arctic Ice Melt and the Paradigms Shift.. Interview with Conservation Biologist Dr. McPherson – Mankind Will Be Extinct in 8 Years or Less h https://www.youtube.com/embed/cw0AAsGaDg0?start=6&end=1078&version=3ttps://www.youtube.com/embed/Gh30Kx1o5lI?start=219&end=1426&version=3 https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gh30Kx1o5lI?start=219&end=1426&version=3 FW: ..here is a brief list of a few of the brilliant scientific minds of our time who totally agree with Dr. McPherson. I am sure some of these infamous scientists hold positions of credibility in your awareness. Frank Fenner (June 2010) http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/about- us/honour-roll/frank-fenner http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/about-us/honour-roll/frank-fenner Malcolm Light (February 2012) Louise Leakey (July 2013) Richard Leakey (December 2013) Neil Dawes (August 2013 Sir Bob Geldorf (October 2013) Sam Carana (November 2013) John Feffer (April 2014) Noam Chomsky (June 2014) Larry Schwartz (July 2014) Ken Rose (July 2014) Jennifer Hynes (August 2014) Also Paul Beckwith - Professor in climatology; working on Ph.D. in abrupt climate change (Department of Geography; Laboratory for Paleoclimatology and Climatology) at University of Ottawa, Ontario. Biologist Paul R. Ehrlich - Professor of Population Studies of the Department of Biology of Stanford University and president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology Reply email: Governors and Sidhas who are not taking Super Radiance meditation as important because most of them have been ostracized and disillusioned by the movement. And many of those who haven’t are not looking terribly healthy or sane. With the Dome meditation attendance having fallen to be so low there is a serious questioning about the endurance of the Dome group meditation in Fairfield. This Wedsnesday meeting becomes an important way post in the journey of the meditating community in Fairfield, Iowa. Subject. Communal Meeting this Weds. Phoenix Rising Hall (Burlington and 3rd). 7:30 PM, Maharishi Effect: Fact or Fiction? David Orme-Johnson, PhD, a leading long-time scientific researcher in the Maharishi Effect, invites you. FW email: I don't feel climate change is (necessarily) scary. It can be sufficiently controlled mainly (not only) by higher Super-Radiance (SR) attendance. My concern has to do with Movement Governors and Sidhas who are not taking SR as important as it is, not prioritizing it as much as they could. There is more power in SR than in the people doing the climate change, gmo, vaccinations, pharmaceuticals, and electromag, etc. Takes a lot of integration to see through. Archer Anangel wrote : Yes there is some good science in meditation research, but seemingly there is not much. Perhaps 1% of the studies meet the gold standard. So out of 700 studies you have seven that are really decent. As the quality of the journal published in goes down, so does the quality of peer review. There are top-level scientists, mid-level scientists, and incompetent scientists. So peer review is a check on quality only if you have good quality reviewers and statisticians to check the math. Really bad quality journals are pay for play, and you can get published even if the study is highly flawed, and the paper may not get any peer review. Meditation studies are a niche market within the field of consciousness studies, and are typically associated with various religious-based movements which are not the best mental platforms on which to implement impartial research. Because most of the meditation research is bad, the baby is getting thrown out with the bath water. Climate science is much more advanced and there is wide consensus that climate change is a serious problem if you ignore politicians and political views. Science on meditation is far behind in getting the kind of consensus we have with climate change. It is the result of a bad approach, using science for marketing rather than knowledge. Promoting bad science in the name of meditation is like offering rotten vegetables in the market. If we like meditation and it benefits us, that does not give us the ability to evaluate the science. Subjective experience and emotion and the results of scientific experiments are often at odds. The best we can say now is meditation looks promising but more research is needed. It is when non-meditating scientists in droves come into the consensual fold that meditation is good for something, then is the point when the case can be made. This is not cynicism, this is the state of affairs. Meditation is great. It is for self-realization. If you are doing meditation for some other reason, you are already halfway to failure. Blame it on Western culture which does not have a good social underpinning for this kind of practice. Actually there is some lot of good science in it, meditation. Peer review. What? Like the global climate science, what, 'all the science is no good because some of the science is no good'? That is what the cynicism offers. That one title said that way in that journal is certainly evil,’Throw it all out because some is bad, poorly done’. This and someone saying it sounds so rational and intellectual except, like tossing in a Trumpism, the underlying assertion is simply not entirely true, a fake news headline in itself. Archer Angel writes, It is great that there is an attempt to do research on TM, but TM and other forms of meditation has a very poor record as far as quality scientific papers, as this summary in Scientific American indicates. Meditation is essentially for self-realization/enlightenment. Promoting it for heath and societal effects so far has not set the scientific world on fire. It does seem to impress people who know little about the nature of scientific research and who seem unable to grasp the difference between a scientific study and what they want to believe. I think people benefit from meditation, but it is still not clear scientifically what it does. Paste: Compelling and Activating, the evident science research comes now also as Clarion call in life policy to meditators to come together in meditation practice of transcendence in groups and change the catastrophic future of mankind into Heaven on Earth. Everyday matters. A: It is a fair descriptor, exponential. Graphs of so many of the variables within the long differential equation of rapid climate change show exponential growth, not just some linear changes since the 1870 baseline of the industrial age.. Coal burning, oil burning for internal combustion power, introduction of exotic greenhouse gases, melt off of polar ice caps, chopping down rainforests for palm oil production, These are exponential peer review variable in a long equation that some would want to wait on more and do nothing..(claiming untested assumptions?) for more research? The person writing email also makes a good human observation in expression about the limited capacity of some folks to think their denial and inaction about this complex compounded problem in only linear ways. I feel the conservation biologists are doing a good job of having a rational conversation about this now in heightening awareness of something very complex that evidently can overwhelm a lot of people’s thinking. Archer Angel asks: Q: What is "exponential science"? I have never heard of it. Mail: I have yet to find any scientist who understands exponential science, and who has an expanded consciousness capable of comprehending holistic events provide valid peer-reviewed scientific arguments contrary to McPherson's observations. email: ..members of Mother Divine and to Members of Purusha and every person who was close to Maharishi (MMY) confided in us that foretold that the impending phase-transition from Kali-Yuga into full blown Sat-Yuga would occur between 2020 and 2025 at which time MMY said that chaos would reign in the streets of the world like a living nightmare too horrible to describe. Oddly enough, MMY's predictions seem to coincide in time-space with Dr. McPherson's which in my mind provides a valence of creedence to McPherson's predicted time-frame. reply email: Good luck to any serious, rational, science-based person trying to debunk the science now! There are more peer-reviewed journal hot links than one could click on and read through in a week! P.S. The 69 Self-Reinforcing Climate Feedback Loops all with hot links start about half-way down the essay. https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/ https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/ wrote : Maharishi would host/promote symposia to consider matters. Inviting speakers and papers. Conversation. Consideration. Radical Change is happening Now: Rapid Climate Change This needs wider platform for consideration. Think of the papers that could be given, the titles.. A Conference program, published.. Presentations, Presenters... Radical Transcendentalism, Phenomenology and Rapid Climate Change. Iowa Farming and Carbon sequestration Greenhouse Agriculture in a Hot House Public Policy and Transportation Earth Science Architecture and Global Warming. Designing for a warmer future. Civil Order in a Changing World. Global Economies and Meteorology, Changes in Iowa etc., .a same kind of anti-science discredit they try to pull on meditation research. .. FW: emails: reply: Yes, we know that the majority of scientists disagree with Dr. McPherson. This does not surprise us since we know that precious few if any scientists ever accepted Maharishi's scientific work yet we all know the validity of that body of evidence. I encourage you to do some personal research by peer reviewed published scientific research before you accept the unsubstantiated conclusions of others less informed and certainly less validated in their opinions . It is one thing to disagree with Dr. McPherson's hypothesis it is quite another to refute the peer reviewed and published scientific papers underlying his position.