>
>
> On May 21, 2006, at 10:34 AM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 21, 2006, at 4:12 AM, sparaig wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > Domash, IIRC, suggested that the Maharishi Effect might have
> > > > an N-squared version, but he didn't buy into MMY's ideas
> > > > about Quantum Mechanics.
> > >
> > > Neither did Hagelin till he was told "make it work, or you're
> > > out of here".
> >
> > That's demonstrably inaccurate, Vaj. As you know,
> > your claim was very thoroughly debunked over on
> > alt.m.t.
>
> It was actually discussed here, not there
No, sorry, it was also discussed there, on alt.m.t,
and, as I said, thoroughly debunked. Allow me to
refresh your memory. This is from a post of yours
on alt.m.t:
"Since a chronic problem with close disciples of
Mahesh Varma is that they need to adjust their
thinking to his (if they want to maintain close
access to him), there will inevitably be times
when CEO Mahesh will say: "change this". When a
scientific researcher does this he comprises not
only the truth, but his own integrity.
"A recent example was given of this on another
TM-related list where a friend of one of John
Hagelin's research assistants explained to him
that Hagelin had insisted there was not sufficient
scientific evidence to support 'pure consciousness'
as a unified field. Mahesh disagreed and told him
'change it or I'll get someone else'.
"Hagelin changed it. Now almost everything in the TMO
'runs' on this central lie and deception."
Remember? Now let's look at the FFL post you were
referring to, from Patrick Gillam, January 23, 2006
(#85801):
"A story about John Hagelin touring:
"I'm trying to summon a memory of a conversation
with a former assistant of John Hagelin. This would
have been the late 1980s or early '90s. As I recall,
she said John was under pressure from Maharishi to
tour the country, telling scientists that consciousness
was indeed the unified field. John resisted, saying his
research partners would frown upon it, and more to
the point, it wasn't such a slam-dunk parallel. But
Maharishi persisted, ultimately saying, If you won't
do it, I'll find someone who will. So John did it.
"I don't think John did any physics research after that.
"That's how I recall it, anyway."
Hagelin's speculative paper "Is Consciousness the
Unified Field?" was published in Modern Science and
Vedic Science in 1987.
On alt.m.t, it was pointed out to you that Hagelin's
notions about consciousness as the unified field
were what led him to come to MIU in the first place.
It's hard to tell for certain from a third-hand
recollection of a long-ago conversation without a
lot more context, but assuming Patrick's memory is
accurate and given the known facts, it would appear
that what Hagelin was objecting to was not the idea
that consciousness was the unified field, but
rather the prospect of having to go out and address
understandably skeptical non-TM physicists to that
effect when the idea was still at a highly
speculative stage.
It's not clear what "not such a slam-dunk parallel"
means, but again, in context, it sounds as though
what he meant was that it was hard to prove to the
satisfaction of physicists--a point he makes quite
strongly in the MSVS paper--not that he didn't believe
it to be the case.
What *is* clear is that your interpretation on alt.m.t
and here of the conversation Patrick remembered--that
Hagelin didn't buy the notion that consciousness is the
unified field--is not only by no means a "slam-dunk" but
is almost certainly off the wall.
, where people privy to such
> information discussed and revealed the knowledge of how TM
> research was unduly influenced, biased and falsified for profit and
> access to the teacher.
These allegations have, in fact, been discussed
over and over again, in great detail, on alt.m.t.
> > > Interesting 'cause it may give an essential insight into how
> > > TM research is fudged: make it work or else you're out of here.
> >
> > Except that wasn't the case.
>
> I'm sorry you missed the discussion where this knowledge was
> brought out.
Except that I didn't miss it, of course. Patrick's
post was in response to one of mine. But that thread
wasn't even about the research being "fudged." There
have been other discussions here along those lines, but
not this one (which began with another misrepresentation
from you, this concerning something Ken Wilber said).
> Self-serving bias is one of the many valid criticisms of TM
> pseudoscience.
<snicker> As you well know, I'm on the record as
being highly skeptical about some of the TM research
and scientific claims, especially concerning the
Maharishi Effect.
But, of course, you're trying to change the subject;
I wasn't addressing the research or the claims at all,
as you know. The issue is *your* claim that Hagelin
doesn't believe consciousness is the unified field.
I'd suggest that claim is highly representative of
self-serving bias on your part.
> > > The Furher Mahesh effect.
> >
> > You can't even spell "Führer."
>
> Yeah, I'd make a bad Nazi.
>
> I'm not surprised you could spell it.
Because I'm an editor, I assume you mean.
Otherwise, I guess it's time to invoke Godwin's Law.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
