--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Ken Wilber makes a great case that the epistemology
> > of subjective exploration (i.e., exploration of
> > consciousness) proceeds by the same fundamental
> > rules as the scientific method, but that's a whole
> > 'nother discussion.
>
> Now, how could you, a TMer, possibly believe that ANY
> case can be made for this, given your experience with TM?
Read the case, Lawson. He makes it in his book
"Eye to Eye." Wilber uses Zen as an example of how
it works in practical terms, but TM is actually an
example as well.
You start with an instrumental injunction: If you
want to know *this*, do *this*.
You follow the instrumental injunction and apprehend
the data (or Datum, in this case).
Then you validate your results by comparing them
with those of others who have followed the same
instrumental injunction.
Wilber goes into a lot more detail, but that's
basically the idea.
It's more complicated and trickier when you're
dealing with subjective investigation; you can
do it properly only with a highly systematic
injunction ("If you want to know whether God
answers prayers, pray for something" isn't
systematic enough); and for validation you need
to have a bunch of people who have scrupulously
followed the same injunction.
But stripped down to its essentials, it's the
same as the scientific method.
