--- 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: > > > [...] > > > > > > > > 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.
In the case of TM, it's "If you want to know the Self..."
