On Jan 4, 2007, at 3:52 PM, sparaig wrote:
It's merely an analogy. Early MIU textbooks on physics (which were
self-published) detailed these analogies but then in a responsible
fashion gave a concluding chapter which stated these were just
analogies and 'you can only take analogies so far.'
On Jan 4, 2007, at 3:52 PM, sparaig wrote:
It's merely an analogy. Early MIU textbooks on physics (which were
self-published) detailed these analogies but then in a responsible
fashion gave a concluding chapter which stated these were just
analogies and 'you can only take analogies so far.'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 3:52 PM, sparaig wrote:
It's merely an analogy. Early MIU textbooks on physics (which were
self-published) detailed these analogies but then in a responsible
fashion gave a concluding chapter which
As I recall that was Larry Domash: analogies break down if they are pushed
too far. David Clay often made the same point in regard to potentially ad hoc
arguments. But, alas, there are no philosophers left at MU (that is because
philosophy is a shear waste of time, I assume). But logically
On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:09 PM, sparaig wrote:
Unless of course an increase in overall numbers also increases side-
effects and the incidence meditative disorders. All the more reason
to include any negative side-effects in your research! To exclude it
in your research is irresponsible and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:09 PM, sparaig wrote:
Unless of course an increase in overall numbers also increases side-
effects and the incidence meditative disorders. All the more reason
to include any negative side-effects in
On Jan 4, 2007, at 9:47 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:09 PM, sparaig wrote:
Unless of course an increase in overall numbers also increases
side-
effects and the incidence meditative disorders. All the more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 9:47 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:09 PM, sparaig wrote:
Unless of course an increase in overall numbers also increases
On Jan 4, 2007, at 10:16 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 9:47 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:09 PM, sparaig wrote:
Unless of course an
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 10:16 AM, sparaig wrote:
Yeah, but the rationale for the ME precludes the radiating of
disharmonious states.
I don't accept that: we radiate our own states constantly,
negative, positive or
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 10:16 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
snip
If you accept that we are all radiating our state of
consciousness continually, of course that dis-ease would
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 10:16 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 9:47 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 10:16 AM, sparaig wrote:
Yeah, but the rationale for the ME precludes the radiating of
disharmonious states.
I don't
On Jan 4, 2007, at 2:30 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 10:16 AM, sparaig wrote:
Yeah, but the rationale for the ME precludes the radiating of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 10:16 AM, sparaig wrote:
Yeah, but the rationale for the ME precludes the radiating of
disharmonious states.
I don't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 2:30 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 10:16 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing that can be said with any certainty is that the ME
produces profoundly positive results. How? When? Where? Can't say.
It's, er, paradoxical...
The only thing that can be said with any certainty
about
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote:
The only thing that can be said with any certainty is that the ME
produces profoundly positive results. How? When? Where? Can't say.
It's, er,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is what happens when science is used for PR
purposes. The ME is full of holes.
Perhaps. If there is ANY validity to the assumptions about the ME (that there
is a field effect
with synergism), then the more people
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote:
This is what happens when science is used for PR
purposes. The ME is full of holes.
Also I don't think it will ever work to use the results of
On Jan 3, 2007, at 4:55 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is what happens when science is used for PR
purposes. The ME is full of holes.
Perhaps. If there is ANY validity to the assumptions about the ME
(that there is a field
It's more than that. Almost all the ME studies have a
very poor design which weakens their conclusions quite
a bit. There is also rather profound prima facia
evidence that the large groups meditating in Fairfield
have not decreased the crime in Fairfield to any
degree whatsoever. Post hoc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@
wrote:
This is what happens when science is used for PR
purposes. The ME is full
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
The only thing that can be said with any certainty is that the
ME
produces profoundly positive results. How? When? Where? Can't
say.
It's,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 3, 2007, at 4:55 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@
wrote:
This is what happens when science is used for PR
purposes. The ME is full of holes.
Perhaps. If
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's more than that. Almost all the ME studies have a
very poor design which weakens their conclusions quite
a bit. There is also rather profound prima facia
evidence that the large groups meditating in Fairfield
have not
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 3, 2007, at 4:55 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@
wrote:
This is what happens when science is used for PR
purposes. The ME is full of holes.
Perhaps. If
Om, hey, New.Morning; do you ever interact with the FF TM university
about
this? On their radio broadcasts they (Drs. Hagelin and
Morris) and other PhD's are saying the ME is an absolute scientific
certainty. A fact. Their method it seems is that if they say this
enough
times and their ME
I've seen research showing that the market performs extremely well in
the few months following a dramatic negative global event, such as the
start of an international conflict, which makes sense as the publicity
of such an event is usually overblown (from an economic perspective at
least) and
This is what happens when science is used for PR
purposes. The ME is full of holes.
--- dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Om, hey, New.Morning; do you ever interact with the
FF TM university
about
this? On their radio broadcasts they (Drs. Hagelin
and
Morris) and other PhD's are
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is what happens when science is used for PR
purposes. The ME is full of holes.
Also I don't think it will ever work to use the results of science,
which measures phenomena objectively, to prove the benefits of a
31 matches
Mail list logo
