Dr. Jeffery Martin, Can He Transition Our Ego-Centric Culture? |456|

Alex

Administrator
#21
There is no there there. A paper from 1997, that's it. He may be legit, but sure has a lot of red flags. I'm all for making money, but don't pretend to be something you are not. No peer reviewed publication of his measurable results. Harvard affiliation from taking one online course, from what I read. He is the one that keeps using term Gold Standard in research, well, let's look at it. Will not release the study. I listened to his book after he was on here last year, and was inspired for the first half, then realized this is not real science. There are proven ways to measure subjective results from a study. Academics is good at this. Maybe I am wrong, Jim, help me out here.
IDK... this all looks pretty legit to me:
http://www.nonsymbolic.org/publications
for example:
http://www.nonsymbolic.org/TSC-2018-Presentation.pdf -- this is the most highly respected consciousness conf in the world... I mean, unless yr saying he wasn't really asked to present there... and the slides are made up.
 

Alex

Administrator
#22
I found this post on reddit:

Hi fellow redditors.​
I've joined the latest Finders Course and I'd like to post here my own review.​
...​
While Finders Course advertise itself as a scientific research protocol on awakening/enlightenment, it's more close to a wellness product sold by an online business (Willow Inc.).​
It is a get-enlightened-quick scheme, that uses an appearance of science as a marketing tool, sells dubious forms of new-age spirituality (i.e. law of attraction, synchronicities), and adopt psychological conditioning in many forms to 1) attract customers 2) sell them an expensive product 3) convince them they reached some sort of spiritual awakening.​
Many people come out of the course believing they have achieved some type of awakening, and while we can't deny that possibility, the main secret ingredient of Finders Course seems to be encouraging self-delusion.​
Most importantly, and as I'd try to demonstrate in the rest of the review, there seems to be a deliberate intent behind Finders Course to deceive people.​
All FC alumni I interacted with seem to be honest believers, that end up even volunteering their free time to support the organization, unaware that they are supporting a scam. To them I extend my compassion.​
I'll now examine some of these claims in more details.​
....​
I saw this... wasn't too impressed.
 
#23
Here is more criticism on the Finder's course on Reddit, by a different author:

POOR EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OF THE FINDERS COURSE EXPERIMENTS​
The Finders course has all the ‘dressings’ of science, the flashy technology, published papers and experiments. Unfortunately, the experimental design is so poor as to make the findings almost worthless.​
There is no control group.​
The participants are not randomised.​
The sample sizes are too small to reach statistical significance.​
The experimenters are not blinded.​
Point being, it’s bad science. It’s just labelled science to increase credibility so that you’ll take it seriously.​
...​
EXTREME SECRECY​
There’s a great deal of secrecy surrounding the techniques in the Finders Course, I believe participants even have to sign an NDA going in. Jeffery apparently released his own DIY version of the finders course available free to the public, but he took it down after no one reached enlightenment. So the reason for all the secrecy is that you are better off not knowing (see Jeffery talk about it in this clip, and in the comments in this video). The argument is that people would be better off without the information, it would hurt more people than it would help. The attitude of, ‘you can’t be trusted with this teaching, you’ll hurt yourself, I’m keeping it from you for your own good,’ frankly is patronising and communicates a not subtle lack of respect. Imagine if Culadasa, Ingram, Shinzen, the Buddha or anyone else had taken the same attitude – how much poorer the world would be. It seems obvious that this explanation is used as a mask for the real reason, increasing profit for the course. I think it’s fine if you want to profit off your course, but don’t be disingenuous about it. Are we meant to take seriously the idea that the best way to wake up everyone in the world coincidentally happens to be the way which participants have to give Jeffery $2000 and other costs for tech?​
...​
 
#24
I saw this... wasn't too impressed.
Did you look at the full review where he writes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/...GjsLICuceAjl4nHWE/edit#heading=h.w2x6yyfaehin

Let me tell you something: when I realized I'd been conned, I didn't feel Love (88%) Positivee thoughts (86%), or Harmony (86%).​
All of these numbers are in fact exploiting what's called survivorship bias, which means they are only reporting results from people that successfully completed the course.​
Participants that drop out are ignored.​
How many people drop out? At the time that page was written (after FC1 and FC2), the rate was 28%, according to the numbers published on this talk from 2015.​
The latest numbers reported are consistent.​
According to this recent presentation (2018), the drop-out rate is about 30%.​
So when you read that 70% of the participants reports PNSE, the actual number of people who payed for the course and reported PNSE is actually 70% of that 70%, which is 49%.
...​
Thanks to this self-selection bias, they can exclude most negative outcomes from their reports, and ensure that only the reports from the people that are satisfied with the course ends up factored in.​
...​
Jeffery is asking, half way through the course, to change the meaning of the world "happiness" when they are answering the survey.​
While for the first two months "happiness" was... well, just happiness, from that moment on, happiness become a form of fundamental wellbeing that may even not include happiness at all.​
What's really happening here is that Jeffery is manipulating participants to affect the data reported.
He is asking participants to change the way they are answering questions on a survey that is designed to monitor a progression, half-way through an experiment.
Every honest scientist would throw away the data after that.​
But it's much worst that that. It's not just an obvious malpractice: it is deliberately designed to skew the data in a more positive outcome for the course.​
...​
In an even more problematic way, the same process of redefinition happens to the idea of awakening.
It seems like there are two very different types of "awakenings" mixed together in FC.​
The first one, I'd call it the grandiose-marketing-awakening.​
This is the awakening people are sold before joining FC, via the marketing material.​
Take a look for exampe at the offical trailer for FC.​
And those who caught just a glimpse, found something indescribable... something beyond the limitations of the self. An awakening into a persistent state of inner peace and wellbeing. A state of flow, joy and ease.​
The music and the images give a even more impressive idea of this "awakening".​
But as people join FC, they are gradually and progressively told a different story.​
They are slowly and cunningly introduced to the idea that actually... awakening may not be that great thing.​
This new type of awakening, which we can call the subtle-shift-awakening, is in fact so subtle that often participants are not even sure if it happened or not.​
One one side, you have the awakening of people who felt their life completely changed (to the point, Jeffery says, that they choose to change their name). On the other, an awakening where no one really noticed any change, and where not even the awakened one is sure if something happened or not.​
How can these two very different experiences been mixed-up under the same name?​
Well, that's the trick. The grandiose one is used to market the product, the subtle one is used to more easily convince people that the course worked.
 

Alex

Administrator
#25
Here is more criticism on the Finder's course on Reddit, by a different author:

POOR EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OF THE FINDERS COURSE EXPERIMENTS​
The Finders course has all the ‘dressings’ of science, the flashy technology, published papers and experiments. Unfortunately, the experimental design is so poor as to make the findings almost worthless.​
There is no control group.​
The participants are not randomised.​
The sample sizes are too small to reach statistical significance.​
The experimenters are not blinded.​
Point being, it’s bad science. It’s just labelled science to increase credibility so that you’ll take it seriously.​
...​
EXTREME SECRECY​
There’s a great deal of secrecy surrounding the techniques in the Finders Course, I believe participants even have to sign an NDA going in. Jeffery apparently released his own DIY version of the finders course available free to the public, but he took it down after no one reached enlightenment. So the reason for all the secrecy is that you are better off not knowing (see Jeffery talk about it in this clip, and in the comments in this video). The argument is that people would be better off without the information, it would hurt more people than it would help. The attitude of, ‘you can’t be trusted with this teaching, you’ll hurt yourself, I’m keeping it from you for your own good,’ frankly is patronising and communicates a not subtle lack of respect. Imagine if Culadasa, Ingram, Shinzen, the Buddha or anyone else had taken the same attitude – how much poorer the world would be. It seems obvious that this explanation is used as a mask for the real reason, increasing profit for the course. I think it’s fine if you want to profit off your course, but don’t be disingenuous about it. Are we meant to take seriously the idea that the best way to wake up everyone in the world coincidentally happens to be the way which participants have to give Jeffery $2000 and other costs for tech?​
...​
you heard the guy go thru the numbers... this is not a huge money making machine. I think you guys are headed in the wrong direction.

I mean, to me, the real story is that he's proven it, but no one cares. which makes sense in a way... I mean, most of us don't have a hard time determining if courses like this "work." we know/feel it right away.

so, he gets a ton of credit for doing all this science to prove to the "bio robot in meaningless universe" crowd what we already knew -- meditation/spiritual practice works in ways science can't explain.
 
#26
you heard the guy go thru the numbers... this is not a huge money making machine. I think you guys are headed in the wrong direction.

I mean, to me, the real story is that he's proven it, but no one cares. which makes sense in a way... I mean, most of us don't have a hard time determining if courses like this "work." we know/feel it right away.

so, he gets a ton of credit for doing all this science to prove to the "bio robot in meaningless universe" crowd what we already knew -- meditation/spiritual practice works in ways science can't explain.
My "complaint" is that he is making claims about scientific research but I can't find the documentation of that research that explains in detail the data that supports his claims. You might be convinced by a book written for the general public, or going through numbers on a podcast, but I am not. I want a detailed explanation of his methods and results.

Why do I insist on detailed research papers? Because I understand all sorts of misleading practices are possible. For example, people are saying there are no controls, studies are not blind, Dr. Martin doesn't count people who drop the course to elevate the "success" rate (those who are not getting increased well-being from the course or who find their well-being is declining are most likely to drop out), he changes the definition of "happy" during the course so that the results show an increase in happiness, and he changes the definition of awakening so it is easier to convince people they have attained it.

Here is more criticism on the Finder's course on Reddit, by a different author:

POOR EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OF THE FINDERS COURSE EXPERIMENTS​
The Finders course has all the ‘dressings’ of science, the flashy technology, published papers and experiments. Unfortunately, the experimental design is so poor as to make the findings almost worthless.​
There is no control group.​
The participants are not randomised.​
The sample sizes are too small to reach statistical significance.​
The experimenters are not blinded.​
Point being, it’s bad science. It’s just labelled science to increase credibility so that you’ll take it seriously.​
...​
Did you look at the full review where he writes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/...GjsLICuceAjl4nHWE/edit#heading=h.w2x6yyfaehin

Let me tell you something: when I realized I'd been conned, I didn't feel Love (88%) Positivee thoughts (86%), or Harmony (86%).​
All of these numbers are in fact exploiting what's called survivorship bias, which means they are only reporting results from people that successfully completed the course.​
Participants that drop out are ignored.​
How many people drop out? At the time that page was written (after FC1 and FC2), the rate was 28%, according to the numbers published on this talk from 2015.​
The latest numbers reported are consistent.​
According to this recent presentation (2018), the drop-out rate is about 30%.​
So when you read that 70% of the participants reports PNSE, the actual number of people who payed for the course and reported PNSE is actually 70% of that 70%, which is 49%.
...​
Thanks to this self-selection bias, they can exclude most negative outcomes from their reports, and ensure that only the reports from the people that are satisfied with the course ends up factored in.​
...​
Jeffery is asking, half way through the course, to change the meaning of the world "happiness" when they are answering the survey.​
While for the first two months "happiness" was... well, just happiness, from that moment on, happiness become a form of fundamental wellbeing that may even not include happiness at all.​
What's really happening here is that Jeffery is manipulating participants to affect the data reported.
He is asking participants to change the way they are answering questions on a survey that is designed to monitor a progression, half-way through an experiment.
Every honest scientist would throw away the data after that.​
But it's much worst that that. It's not just an obvious malpractice: it is deliberately designed to skew the data in a more positive outcome for the course.​
...​
In an even more problematic way, the same process of redefinition happens to the idea of awakening.
It seems like there are two very different types of "awakenings" mixed together in FC.​
The first one, I'd call it the grandiose-marketing-awakening.​
This is the awakening people are sold before joining FC, via the marketing material.​
Take a look for exampe at the offical trailer for FC.​
And those who caught just a glimpse, found something indescribable... something beyond the limitations of the self. An awakening into a persistent state of inner peace and wellbeing. A state of flow, joy and ease.​
The music and the images give a even more impressive idea of this "awakening".​
But as people join FC, they are gradually and progressively told a different story.​
They are slowly and cunningly introduced to the idea that actually... awakening may not be that great thing.​
This new type of awakening, which we can call the subtle-shift-awakening, is in fact so subtle that often participants are not even sure if it happened or not.​
One one side, you have the awakening of people who felt their life completely changed (to the point, Jeffery says, that they choose to change their name). On the other, an awakening where no one really noticed any change, and where not even the awakened one is sure if something happened or not.​
How can these two very different experiences been mixed-up under the same name?​
Well, that's the trick. The grandiose one is used to market the product, the subtle one is used to more easily convince people that the course worked.
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
#27
Did you look at the full review where he writes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/...GjsLICuceAjl4nHWE/edit#heading=h.w2x6yyfaehin

Let me tell you something: when I realized I'd been conned, I didn't feel Love (88%) Positivee thoughts (86%), or Harmony (86%).​
All of these numbers are in fact exploiting what's called survivorship bias, which means they are only reporting results from people that successfully completed the course.​
Participants that drop out are ignored.​
How many people drop out? At the time that page was written (after FC1 and FC2), the rate was 28%, according to the numbers published on this talk from 2015.​
The latest numbers reported are consistent.​
According to this recent presentation (2018), the drop-out rate is about 30%.​
So when you read that 70% of the participants reports PNSE, the actual number of people who payed for the course and reported PNSE is actually 70% of that 70%, which is 49%.
...​
Thanks to this self-selection bias, they can exclude most negative outcomes from their reports, and ensure that only the reports from the people that are satisfied with the course ends up factored in.​
...​
Jeffery is asking, half way through the course, to change the meaning of the world "happiness" when they are answering the survey.​
While for the first two months "happiness" was... well, just happiness, from that moment on, happiness become a form of fundamental wellbeing that may even not include happiness at all.​
What's really happening here is that Jeffery is manipulating participants to affect the data reported.
He is asking participants to change the way they are answering questions on a survey that is designed to monitor a progression, half-way through an experiment.
Every honest scientist would throw away the data after that.​
But it's much worst that that. It's not just an obvious malpractice: it is deliberately designed to skew the data in a more positive outcome for the course.​
...​
In an even more problematic way, the same process of redefinition happens to the idea of awakening.
It seems like there are two very different types of "awakenings" mixed together in FC.​
The first one, I'd call it the grandiose-marketing-awakening.​
This is the awakening people are sold before joining FC, via the marketing material.​
Take a look for exampe at the offical trailer for FC.​
And those who caught just a glimpse, found something indescribable... something beyond the limitations of the self. An awakening into a persistent state of inner peace and wellbeing. A state of flow, joy and ease.​
The music and the images give a even more impressive idea of this "awakening".​
But as people join FC, they are gradually and progressively told a different story.​
They are slowly and cunningly introduced to the idea that actually... awakening may not be that great thing.​
This new type of awakening, which we can call the subtle-shift-awakening, is in fact so subtle that often participants are not even sure if it happened or not.​
One one side, you have the awakening of people who felt their life completely changed (to the point, Jeffery says, that they choose to change their name). On the other, an awakening where no one really noticed any change, and where not even the awakened one is sure if something happened or not.​
How can these two very different experiences been mixed-up under the same name?​
Well, that's the trick. The grandiose one is used to market the product, the subtle one is used to more easily convince people that the course worked.
IDK... I thought this sounded like a silly/unscientific argument. but pls pursue this and tell me what you find. you should email Jeffery.
 

Alex

Administrator
#28
My "complaint" is that he is making claims about scientific research but I can't find the documentation of that research that explains in detail the data that supports his claims. You might be convinced by a book written for the general public, or going through numbers on a podcast, but I am not. I want a detailed explanation of his methods and results.

Why do I insist on detailed research papers? Because I understand all sorts of misleading practices are possible. For example, people are saying there are no controls, studies are not blind, Dr. Martin ignores people who drop the course to elevate the "success" rate, he changes the definition of "happy" during the course so that the results show an increase in happiness, and he changes the definition of awakening so it is easier to convince people they have attained it.
pls contact him and report back. I've been duped before...
 
#32
you heard the guy go thru the numbers... this is not a huge money making machine. I think you guys are headed in the wrong direction.

I mean, to me, the real story is that he's proven it, but no one cares. which makes sense in a way... I mean, most of us don't have a hard time determining if courses like this "work." we know/feel it right away.

so, he gets a ton of credit for doing all this science to prove to the "bio robot in meaningless universe" crowd what we already knew -- meditation/spiritual practice works in ways science can't explain.
Well, Alex maybe science is trying. MIT/ Stanford educated Ph.D physicist Frank Heile took the Finders Course a few years ago and wrote a book about his meditation experiences and a science oriented explanation on the nature of meditation and spirituality. I heavily scanned his work and traded comments with him. I absolutely don't agree with his conclusions, but he's a very gentile, thoughtful and approachable person. Take a look. He might be interesting to talk to.

I took the Finders Course in 2015 along with you Alex. I still feel deeply indebted to you. To anyone counting,Jeffery's been interviewed here 3 times now? In the course, Jeffery basically walked me through a ton of spiritual techniques and used about 3 hrs worth of standardized psychological assessments tools out of the University of Pennsylvania to measure before, during and after taking the 15 week course. I believe you had to do the initial assessment too? It sucked but I did it. Jeffery uses these measurements in his studies but I don't know where they're posted. I believe about 1000 people have taken his various courses, he has several.

https://spiritualityexplained.com/?...xsZe4iOFZ5k-TjWcLwZPlNPEKDaDLyKgUV-g3_6QI2IcY
 

Alex

Administrator
#33
Well, Alex maybe science is trying. MIT/ Stanford educated Ph.D physicist Frank Heile took the Finders Course a few years ago and wrote a book about his meditation experiences and a science oriented explanation on the nature of meditation and spirituality. I heavily scanned his work and traded comments with him. I absolutely don't agree with his conclusions, but he's a very gentile, thoughtful and approachable person. Take a look. He might be interesting to talk to.

I took the Finders Course in 2015 along with you Alex. I still feel deeply indebted to you. To anyone counting,Jeffery's been interviewed here 3 times now? In the course, Jeffery basically walked me through a ton of spiritual techniques and used about 3 hrs worth of standardized psychological assessments tools out of the University of Pennsylvania to measure before, during and after taking the 15 week course. I believe you had to do the initial assessment too? It sucked but I did it. Jeffery uses these measurements in his studies but I don't know where they're posted. I believe about 1000 people have taken his various courses, he has several.

https://spiritualityexplained.com/?...xsZe4iOFZ5k-TjWcLwZPlNPEKDaDLyKgUV-g3_6QI2IcY
Well, Alex maybe science is trying. MIT/ Stanford educated Ph.D physicist Frank Heile took the Finders Course a few years ago and wrote a book about his meditation experiences and a science oriented explanation on the nature of meditation and spirituality. I heavily scanned his work and traded comments with him. I absolutely don't agree with his conclusions, but he's a very gentile, thoughtful and approachable person. Take a look. He might be interesting to talk to.

I took the Finders Course in 2015 along with you Alex. I still feel deeply indebted to you. To anyone counting,Jeffery's been interviewed here 3 times now? In the course, Jeffery basically walked me through a ton of spiritual techniques and used about 3 hrs worth of standardized psychological assessments tools out of the University of Pennsylvania to measure before, during and after taking the 15 week course. I believe you had to do the initial assessment too? It sucked but I did it. Jeffery uses these measurements in his studies but I don't know where they're posted. I believe about 1000 people have taken his various courses, he has several.

https://spiritualityexplained.com/?...xsZe4iOFZ5k-TjWcLwZPlNPEKDaDLyKgUV-g3_6QI2IcY
thx. do you have the link to Frank's review. I didn't find it here: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...hUKEwjxmcTH8tHqAhVLHTQIHaWKCLsQ4dUDCAw&uact=5
 
#35
Why did you have to hate on people wanting a new Ford right after I got done drooling over the new Ford Bronco? :)



I had my first "Persistent Non-Symbolic Experiences" around age 19 when playing around with contemplative prayer and reading Bernadette Roberts' book "The Experience of No-Self". I can attest to the greater sense of well-being it brings and the ability to see everything through "The Beautiful Glasses".



The thing in her book that scared me away from it since I was a fundy Christian at the time was where she says something like, "I realized that if there is no personal self, there is no personal God." That made me feel empty and frightened that I was getting off track, so I put meditation on the shelf for a few years.



I later came to believe that the "experience of no self" or "PNSE" as Dr. Martin calls it is a type of experience that the self can have. The "self" or ego is essentially a feedback loop which builds structures such as personality and character.



Without words, without this feedback loop, there is just experience. And since structure creates stress, then dismantling this structure feels like a relief - thus the greater sense of well-being.



As was mentioned, this extra-well being comes at a price. It makes relationships difficult. It also makes it difficult to remove yourself from an abusive relationship or otherwise protect yourself. The Ego or Self has a purpose... it helps us navigate the world. It helps us construct narratives by which we can make decisions about our future rather than be merely carried along by the currents of circumstance.



So in short, the lack of mental stress and structure from PNSE feels nice and it is good to know how to come and go from it, but it can make it easier for you to get carried in a direction you don't want to go and make it hard for you to get unstuck from there. When you're living in the moment and every day is a new day and you don't hold on to judgement and hard feelings and you go with the flow, you are easy prey.



So you need an ego driven mode of being to get you where you want to go and then you need the ability to turn that wordy feedback loop off so you can enjoy the scenery once you get there.

This reflects well my own experiences with trying to integrate any spiritual idea with everyday life, and also my life long frustration on this particular point. There seems to be a time and place for everything. Sometimes you really need your ego to navigate and interact with others, or else you can be hurt, taken advantage of or seen as prey indeed. In other times, periods and situations, there seems to be a natural 'space' for a more egoless interaction with the world, like the above mentioned.

I usually listen to my gut feelings about this; I may go weeks on end focusing my self, in my ego, until a situation occurs which gives me a nudge to start operating from a more egoless position in life, and then, visa-versa. Going against it tends to bring negative outcomes or so I have found. This dynamic tends to cycle in response to life events, moods and phases; it can even be a day to day or hour to hour feeling. One day you might just wake up and feel like you really need to be more assertive and let others know that you are not to be messed with. Not heeding this gut feeling brings the sense that I've been weaker in my interactions with people, and they will start to notice and you get 'grounded' by events that pull you down into a more material experience of life. On other days, you can be more "egoless" with others for example, and life reflects all that wonderful higher stuff back to you.


I tend to judge the 'truth' of any type of spiritual idea like this; I notice the ones which peak my interest, which coincidentally tends to be what works in response to an issue I'm having. Once they stop working, I'll just leave them for the time being. And the interesting thing is, I've found you can come back to different ideas that you previously dismissed as rubbish, and they can have value for you again in some form or fashion in your life. Why is that? For me, that is a question I'm always asking.

Which also reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson a little bit. Whatever the thinker thinks, the prover proves...


Food for thought!
 
#36
Alex does all this providing and gets so little love in comparison.
I don't know enough, but I'd be pretty pissed about that.
Thank you Alex for providing.

This interview represented integrity to an utmost degree - speaking of Dr. Martin here.
"Stayed in his lane" to me he maintained the space he created and did not venture out even though invited.
The consciousness space is not his realm. Consciousness includes his realm but his space does not encompass the consciousness realm.

He speaks of his results - which (obviously?) are because of consciousness. So why make a point of consciousness when the main point is the results.
 

Alex

Administrator
#37
This reflects well my own experiences with trying to integrate any spiritual idea with everyday life, and also my life long frustration on this particular point. There seems to be a time and place for everything. Sometimes you really need your ego to navigate and interact with others, or else you can be hurt, taken advantage of or seen as prey indeed. In other times, periods and situations, there seems to be a natural 'space' for a more egoless interaction with the world, like the above mentioned.

I usually listen to my gut feelings about this; I may go weeks on end focusing my self, in my ego, until a situation occurs which gives me a nudge to start operating from a more egoless position in life, and then, visa-versa. Going against it tends to bring negative outcomes or so I have found. This dynamic tends to cycle in response to life events, moods and phases; it can even be a day to day or hour to hour feeling. One day you might just wake up and feel like you really need to be more assertive and let others know that you are not to be messed with. Not heeding this gut feeling brings the sense that I've been weaker in my interactions with people, and they will start to notice and you get 'grounded' by events that pull you down into a more material experience of life. On other days, you can be more "egoless" with others for example, and life reflects all that wonderful higher stuff back to you.


I tend to judge the 'truth' of any type of spiritual idea like this; I notice the ones which peak my interest, which coincidentally tends to be what works in response to an issue I'm having. Once they stop working, I'll just leave them for the time being. And the interesting thing is, I've found you can come back to different ideas that you previously dismissed as rubbish, and they can have value for you again in some form or fashion in your life. Why is that? For me, that is a question I'm always asking.

Which also reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson a little bit. Whatever the thinker thinks, the prover proves...


Food for thought!
thx... totally agree... no set answers... just journey stuff :)
 

Alex

Administrator
#38
"Stayed in his lane" to me he maintained the space he created and did not venture out even though invited.
thx... yeah, this is what I see also. I see a guy who could have done a lot of things with his skill-set but decided to channel his efforts into trying to bring some scientific measurement (as limited and imperfect as social science is) to a fundamental question.

Regarding money making, he would have been much better off baking a bunch of cultish stuff to the recipe, but all indications are that he didn't do this.
 
#39
thx... yeah, this is what I see also. I see a guy who could have done a lot of things with his skill-set but decided to channel his efforts into trying to bring some scientific measurement (as limited and imperfect as social science is) to a fundamental question. Regarding money making, he would have been much better off baking a bunch of cultish stuff to the recipe, but all indications are that he didn't do this.
Regarding cultish:
He is very intelligent so knows that to make a personality which is "cult leader" is to trap awareness into that personality even though after death of the physical state, he could not re-capture any benefit of that personality in his next/new form. So why do it?

Each life is new and one is not allowed to partake in benefits (as owner of) from a previous life.
 
#40
I used to go to the Zen center near where I live for group meditation and to listen to talks. Many of the talks were by members who said they dropped out of the rat race to pursue meditation. I thought they were crazy until it happened to me.

I recommend newlyweds and parents of young children to avoid doing too much meditation. I agree it can be ... disruptive ... of your relationships and plans for the future. It reduces your belief in free will for yourself and others. Even if you don't notice a BIG CHANGE, it can sneak up on you in which case it can be particularly pernicious since you don't notice anything has changed, you never think of turning it off.

I think there is a good possibility that if everyone started doing a lot of meditation, the world economy would collapse and billions would starve.



Spiritually this can be a good thing because otherwise bad karma gets passed on from person to person - you get annoyed so you are inconsiderate of others - but if you start meditating, you stop being so focused on yourself and you begin to absorb the bad karma and the world becomes a nicer place. But I don't think everyone is here for the purpose of getting awakened, some people are here for other experiences. As far as I know no one ever came back from an NDE and said everyone has to start meditating and get enlightened. They mostly say we should treat each other with kindness and love. Personally, I chose meditation to help me do that, but it's not for everyone.
"I think there is a good possibility that if everyone started doing a lot of meditation, the world economy would collapse and billions would starve. "


Research shows that meditation impairs motivation...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S074959781630646X
Mindfulness Meditation Impairs Task Motivation but Not Performance​
Highlights​
•State mindfulness impaired motivation to complete cognitive and performance tasks.​
•State mindfulness had no overall effect (good or bad) for performance on same tasks.​
•Weakened future focus and arousal serially mediated demotivating effect.​
•Mindfulness enabled people to detach from stressors, which improved task focus.​
•Detachment and task focus help explain why mindfulness does not alter performance.​
Abstract​
A state of mindfulness is characterized by focused, nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment. The current research experimentally investigated how state mindfulness influences task motivation and performance, using multiple meditation inductions, comparison conditions, tasks, and participant samples. Mindfulness inductions, relative to comparison conditions, reduced motivation to tackle mundane tasks (Experiments 1–4) and pleasant tasks (Experiment 2). Decreased future focus and decreased arousal serially mediated the demotivating effect of mindfulness (Experiments 3 and 4). In contrast to changes in motivation, inducing a state of mindfulness did not affect task performance, as seen in all experiments but one (Experiments 2–5). Meta-analyses of performance experiments, including unreported findings (i.e., the file drawer), supported these conclusions. Experiment 5’s serial mediation showed that mindfulness enabled people to detach from stressors, which improved task focus. When combined with mindfulness’s demotivating effects, these results help explain why mindfulness does not alter performance.​
 
Top