--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 23, 2006, at 10:45 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jan 22, 2006, at 5:20 PM, authfriend wrote: > >> > >> > >>> OK, I've listened to it, and I think you need to > >>> listen to it again. The fallacy Wilber is talking > >>> about doesn't have anything to do with TM's claims. > >>> > >>> Perhaps you also need to review what TM claims, > >>> for that matter. > >>> > >> > >> No that's all right, it's pretty clear to me. For example he says > >> in regard to the popular movie "What the Bleep" which prominently > >> features John Hagelin making some typical but rather wild (TMO > >> type) claims: > >> > >> "For example "What the Bleep Do we Know", I would say that more > >> or less every actual assertion they make about physical > >> realities, meaning "quantum realities" and their relationship to > >> spiritual reality is categorically FALSE." > > > > Well, again, we'd need to know what Hagelin actually > > *said* in the film, and what Wilber means by "*more or > > less* every assertion." If that vague statement makes > > it all "pretty clear" to you, I'd say you're rather > > easily satisfied. > > I'm not a believer, maybe that's why.
Well, you're an active DISbeliever, and I do think that's why you're so easily satisfied. Wilber *appears* to be confirming your disbelief, so of course you're not going to be persnickety about whether he's *actually* doing so or not. > I realize this whole idea > that Wilber is presenting takes apart many of the claims of the TMO > and this would probably be hard or impossible for you to accept. Yet another example of your up-is-downism with regard to what I've said. Here's what I wrote a few posts back: I have enormous respect for Wilber's thinking in this area; I've been citing him for years. His analyses have greatly clarified my own understanding. If he debunked a TM claim, his would be the last word, as far as I'm concerned. His introductory essay in Quantum Questions is extraordinarily lucid and tightly reasoned as to what can and cannot be said with reference to quantum mechanics and mysticism. > To me he is stating things that were rather obvious before I heard > him talk about it. To me as well. However, that's a complete non sequitur, because the issue is not whether what he's saying is obvious or accurate, it's whether it conflicts with the TMO's claims. One final point: It may well be that Wilber *could* debunk the TMO's claims. It may well be that they're all utter nonsense. What I'm saying is that he hasn't done so *in this talk*. He isn't *addressing* claims the TMO makes in this talk. To the best of my knowledge, the TMO hasn't made the claims he addresses in this talk. Get it now? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/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/
