On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:28:12 -0700, Louis Schmier yelled at the clouds: >New Agey? That's judgmental nonsense.
Of course, you should have asked what I meant by "New Agey" instead of assuming you knew what I meant. Let me provide you one definition: |Definition: The label "New Age" is a vague, catch-all term applied all |manner of modern spiritual, paranormal and religious beliefs. Just about |the only thing they all have in common is that they do not derive from |biblical traditions, which of course leads those who belong to the |orthodox or fundamentalist wings of those biblical traditions to treat |anything New Age as satanic and evil. | |The name itself is derived from the fact that many movements which can |be categorized as New Age regard themselves as being on the forefront |of a general societal trend which is moving towards a "new" age of spiritual |development. In this new age, old religious dogmas will be abandoned and |entirely new superstitions adopted. | |A great many New Age ideas are derived from Eastern religious traditions, |like Hinduism and Buddhism. ... | |Another important principle of New Age philosophies is that it simply |does not matter if those philosophies or if any of the underlying principles |are "true" or not. All that matters is if a person's behavior improves and |if the person grows spiritually. This is a form of spiritual Machiavellianism - |the ends justify the means every time. It is because of this that people who |count themselves as part of the "New Age" are able to tolerate any belief |or doctrine except skepticism. For them, to be skeptical is to be without |hope - hope of personal improvement or hope of spiritual development. |Even worse, their presence and their writings imperil the rest of the world's |population by leading them away from New Age beliefs. http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/paranormal/bldef_newage.htm Then again, that just one definition. However, if you look over your previous post in this thread and examine the statements you make (e.g., "Mindfulness is both simple and powerful."), I think that you would find several examples of where you are vague and cannot support your statements by references to scientific research. Indeed, what scientific research has shown "mindfulness to be simple and powerful"? What do you even mean by "simple' and "powerful"? >Hesitate to ask for sources? Mike! Was that a left-handed slap that is >as subtle as a brick? Not very collegial. Louis, in the past you have expressed your disdain for science, scientific thinking, and have supported idiots like Ben Stein when he compared scientists to Nazis. I don't know what you were thinking when expressed these ideas but clearly your disdain for SCIENCE in a forum that is devoted to "Teaching in the Psychological SCIENCES" either reflects a profound tone deafness to what you are saying or you do so deliberately. Now tell me: who has been as subtle as a brick? >Anyway, take a look at the works of John Kabat-Zinn and Jack Kornfield. Is this the best you can do, not even able to provide a reference to an article published in peer-reviewed scientific journal? Please Louis, in a couple of minutes I can locate the (few) journal articles these two have published. Clearly you should be able to do the same but what am I saying? You should have these articles at your finger tips since you seem to be relying upon them as the basis for making your statements! Please provide the specific journal articles you are relying upon. >By the way, the latter holds a Ph.D.in clinical psychology. Am I supposed to be impressed by this? What is this, regression to authority? Since when has having a Ph.D. in any subject served as a safeguard against holding and promoting foolish beliefs? >The former is also a Ph.D. in molecular biology from MIT, and >founder and former Executive Director of the Center for Mindfulness >in Medicine, Health Care, and Society at the University of Massachusetts >Medical School. Again, am I supposed to be impressed by this? Why? What does this have to do with establishing the factual basis of your statements? Or do you think that such an achievement automatically confers infalliability on the statements that such people might make? What a curious submission to authority. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
