--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > From my point of view, Lawson represents an almost- > > > > > > perfect example of the "TM paradigm," which is based on > > > > > > the assumption that the TM view of things and descrip- > > > > > > tion of things is correct, and that any view or description > > > > > > that differs from that is by definition incorrect. > > > > > > > > > > Well of course. However, I'm well aware that my paradigm may be > > > > > flawed, incorrect and/or incomplete. > > > > > > > > And one of the ways you *find out* whether your > > > > paradigm is flawed, incorrect, and/or incomplete > > > > is to compare it closely with other paradigms, > > > > including the rationales for those paradigms, and > > > > scientific research if it's available. > > > > > > > > Barry's basing his accusation that you aren't open > > > > to other paradigms on the fact that you're doing > > > > exactly what would be expected if you *were* open > > > > to other paradigms. > > > > > > But the scientific paradigm is one that Barry rejects (when it > > > suits him, I think) when dealing with spiritual matters. > > > > Oh, indeed. I noted *that* odd contradiction in an > > earlier post. Barry positively foamed at the mouth > > when Shemp asked him about evidence for his claim of > > having seen Frederick Lenz levitate, for example, but > > derided those who believed in a past golden age as > > recounted in the Vedas because there was no scientific > > evidence for it. > > > > But I don't think he's referring to the scientific > > paradigm here, rather the TM paradigm of the nature > > and mechanics of consciousness. > > Yes, but the core of the scientific paradigm is to be open to the > possibility that you might be wrong (or right for that matter) and > to methodically work to discover what aspects of what you believe > are wrong/right and in what context.
Oh, I see what you're saying. So it's a second layer of contradiction. *Very* funny. > The TM paradigm about consciousness assumes that it CAN be studied, > at least to some extent externally, by using the various tools of > Science. Right. 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/
