--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.
>
Except, that there's no "knowing" in the scientific sense.
