I feel one of the main reasons Hawkins draws criticism is he talks in absolutes, as that article states.
Absolutes are a big No No in a society which has its intellectual and academic structures well entrenched in pluralistic relativism; or the GREEN meme for those familiar with Spiral Dynamics.
I�m not sure if it�s a problem with absolutes or even the oddness of the technique that he uses. After all, if one could find out, with 100% accuracy, whether or not it was going to rain tomorrow by doing the Three Stooges Eye Poke Test then few would complain about how the results were obtained or would fuss about whether or not the results obtained were called absolutes (rain or no rain would be absolutes). The problem seems to be that the results Hawkins obtains come from the unconscious and are being presented as absolutes beyond the mind they were obtained from. If one could give the muscle resistance test to god then one might indeed obtain absolutes. Or maybe that kind of zeroes in on a possible attitude problem somewhere within the research or researchers.
It sounds like Hawkins has a firm grasp on cultural relativism and the BS it uses to try to ground itself.
Welcome and thank you for the article! I note with interest that Hawkins' Amazon "calibration" of the new book has dropped from five stars to three and a
George Washington's character has been called The Eighth Wonder of the World. This is a man who rose early for prayer and retired to his study for scripture reading and study every night at 9pm.
We know how soldiers are, but his troops would not dare to use certain language in front of him. I could go on and on, but being at the same level as George Bush does seem a bit low to me.
Hawkins' new tape series:
Nightingale Conant has been a leading force in the personal development field. They are part of the Human Potential movement and can lean quite a bit toward New Age at times.
A supportive piece from a New Age magazine. Another interview becomes available next month...
Why are all these New Agers getting into conservative politics? You'd think they would shun him, wouldn't you?
Why are all these New Agers getting into conservative politics? You'd think they would shun him, wouldn't you?
What�s your evidence that this is so, Michael? That would be good news, if true.
From page 202 of Truth vs Falsehood:
Problematic Positionalities and Issues
Anti-/hate America 160
Bearing False Witness 60
Birchism (John) 160
Capital Punishment(adults) 160
Capital Punishment (adolescents) 130
Conspiracy theories 180
"Dead White Men," Concept of 130
Disloyalty to Country 160
False Accusation 160
Frivolous Jurisprudence 190
"Ghetto Lit" 90
Hatred of Authority 120
Intimidation by Litigation 150
"Left-Wing" activism 165
"Made Uncomfortable" 175
Malicious Slander 135
"Man/Boy Love 80
"One Wrong Justifies Another" 100
"Open Society" 180
"Politically Correct" 190
Politically "Elite" 160
"Protest" suicide 70
Rulings (collective) 9th Circuit Court: Appeals Reversed by Supreme Court 185
Sedition disguised as "Art" 135
Social Myths 180
"Stupid White Men" 130
Social Arrogance 155
"Superior" views 155
Turner Diaries 130
Victim/Perpetrator (Model) 130-150
Vilify Legitimate Authority 120
"White Lies" 190
White Supremacist 160
From page 209:
"Academic Left" 180
Afrocentrism (Racism) 180
"Critical Theory" (Marcuse) 145
Dilectical Materialism 135
"End Justifies the Means" 120
Epistomologic Relativism 190
Fascism (Secular) 80
Fascism (Theocratic) 50
Fascism (Islamic/Militant) 50
Feminist Politics (Sexism) 185
"ism" (Suffix) 180
"Peacenik" (Politicization) 180
Baudrillard, Jean 175
Caputo, John 185
Chomsky, Noam 135-185
Da Lauze, Gilles 190
Darrida, Jacques 170
Foucalt, Michel 190
Husserl, Edmund 195
Irigary, Luci 155
Kristeva, Julia 150
Kuhn, Fritz 195
Lacan, Jacque 180
Lyotard, Jean-Francois 185
Machu, Rigoberta 180
Marcuse, Herbert 150
Marx, Karl 135
Popper, Karl 185
Sartre, Jaen Paul 200
Singer Peter 195
Vidal, Gore 180
Zinn, Howard 200
Far-Right Radical 80
Far-Left Radical 80
Pythagoras (Ancient Greece) 190
Social Relativism 185
Theocratic Totalitarianism 50
Bohm, David 505
Bohr, Niels 450
Boole, George 460
Burbank, Luther 450
Copernicus, Nicolaus 455
Curie, Madam Marie 505
Darwin, Charles 450
Edison, Thomas 470
Einstein, Albert 499
Faraday, Michael 440
Fermi, Enrico 455
Freud, Sigmund 499
Fuller, Buckminster 445
Galen, Claudius 475
Galileo, (Galilei) 455
Godel, Kurt 455
Halley, Edmund 460
Harvey, William 475
Heisenberg, Werner 485
Jung, Carl 520
Kepler, Johannes 460
Mendel, Gregor 460
Maxwell, James 445
Newton, Issac 499
Pasteur, Louis 485
Pauling, Linus 450
Planck, Max 475
Rutherford, Ernest 450
Salk, Jonas 455
Steinmetz, Charles 455
Tesla, Nicola 460
Notice that Linus Pauling, Nobel Laureate and co-author with Hawkins of Orthomolecular Psychiatry, is included on the list. Plug?
It is very difficult to break the 499 barrier of rationality and intellect. Notice that only a few scientists, or theologians for that matter, break 499. Could this be why science and religion have such a problem resolving the creation/evolution controversy? It will likely never be resolved at the level of intellect and reason alone. Jung is the highest scientist, and his "science" bordered on the mystical and focused on the spiritual.
"Jesus is my Lord and Savior" most likely calibrates around 485, the level of theology.
When John Paul II says that Christ is more than a prophet like Muhammed, more than a wise sage like Socrates, more than enlightened like the Buddha, He is the One True Mediator between God and man, he is speaking from a calibrated level of 570, which lies beyond the realm of theology, reason or intellect. This knowledge is Divine in origin.
Enjoy your sabbath! Enter into His courts with praise!
The trap of the intellect is covered in Chapter 13 of the forthcoming book Transcending the Levels of Consciousness: The Stairway to God
scheduled for publication January 2006.
Einstein and Freud both reached 499. 500 is a barrier to the intellect so it seems.
MM, it still almost sounds like you believe there's something to this more than just a measure of Hawkins' own unconscious perspective. I'll admit that it's fun to read the calibration numbers, but much along the lines of an interesting "parlor game," if you know what I mean. So where are you with this? It sounds like you're already looking forward to the next book.
Hawkins in his last Sedona lecture did some clarification of calibrations.
I know to anti Hawkins people �clarifications� will sound like retractions, but not much you can do about that.
One major realization is that calibrations are effected by observation.
For instance a cat�s purr will calibrate at 500 LOVE but the purr itself is not really 500 all the time. It is only 500 when we observe it as love.
Kevin Pringle who moderates a Hawkins Yahoo forum did a summery of what was covered.
�He (Dr Hawkins) went on to another subject which I loved....the obsessive compulsive realist....HA! or as I have changed to an acronym...OCL's
He said he gets hit with tons of email asking him 'how come this
calibrates at 385 here and 380 there and wah wah wah' so he went on
to make the point that...the calibrations are not absolute, not
written in stone and are meant to give you an idea of the field of
energy that it is coming out of. Calibrations change all the time.
the calibration of your mother could change drastically if you are
holding her in mind, say, as a mother, as a woman, how you saw her in your teens, or your childhood, Hitler calibrated in the 400s before falling as did Napoleon....all those numbers will be different depending on the context in which its being observed.
When calibrating gorillas, there are high land and low land and all
types of different ones. So he said look...dont email me about it!!
its just to point you in the field where it comes from.
However this was a somewhat valid question when it comes to how the
torah calibrates so drastically different on different
recordings...but that is because there is the Torah how the jews of
yesteryear observed it how its observed now, how its observed in
different places and peoples....etc etc...
k testing itself calibrates at 600 so its not absolute Truth and
should not be taken so meticulously literal on the every digit.�
These are good points as calibrating is very misunderstood and Hawkins himself has contributed to this.
To Hawkins context is everything and I agree with that.
I�ll see if I can find something he has said on context.
For me calibrating is a tool. That�s all. A powerful one if used in the right context.
For me calibrating is a tool. That�s all. A powerful one if used in the right context.
Okay, Michael. I�m going to play devil�s advocate, and I promise to be gentle. What is that context? What exactly can one do with a Hawkins calibration? Does it slice? Does it dice? Does it make julienne fries? Or is it just for selling books? Inquiring minds want to know!
The proof is in the eating ��
Long before I came across Dr Hawkins I was using kinesiology for several years.
Once you get a handle on it, what it can do for you is nothing short of amazing. See my story at this link
It�s the 11th post � The first sentence reads �
I realize this discussion has gone a bit cold �but I�m so pleased to see an interest in David Hawkins work.
Kevin Pringle puts it well �.
"K testing for instance. To the hard core linear ego, it is a bunch of crap. But instead of just poo pooing it, one can set the
intention "Where does my consciousness have to be to understand this" which sort of tells the universe that yes, I don�t get it, but that doesn�t mean it is not True. Please show me how I could understand this.
Its sort of a statement of humility as well.
Hope this helps."
Re the above and the link
Sorry its the 13th post which starts - with
not trying to change you mind on kinesiology, but here is a little story on muscle self testing and why it can be useful sometimes. Food for thought.
Well, if two particles can know the state of each other from across the universe � instantaneously � then I suppose it's no more unusual than someone finding their diving card from among a bunch of boxes via muscle resistance. Thanks for the info, MM.
I don't know at this point if Hawkins will wind up in the trash bin of failed New Age gurus. My sense is that his motives are pure. What does he want?
He has money, he has a wife, he's made Who's Who and he had peace and quiet in Sedona until he started doing basically the same thing as Thomas Keating.
He really believes in this and wants to move spiritual psychology forward.
Not sure why I like him. It could be just a passing phase in my mystical adolescence and I'll outgrow it soon. Hawkins claims that reading his books or attending his workshop raises one's level of consciousness. I felt this last August and I'm feeling it again this August. I know it's highly subjective, but I feel it to be true.
Then again, I tend to place intuition over logic, which is why I find you all to be so helpful.
MM, I think it's fine to use AK to test one's unconscious attitudes about something, and maybe even as an adjunct to helping diagnose allergies and the like. To claim that it puts one in touch with some kind of source for evaluating objective truth is another matter, however, and that's my beef with Hawkins. I think the critique you linked to above blows that out of the water, as did some of our earlier discussions. There just isn't any kind of corroborating experimental evidence to backk that up, so one really does need to accept in faith that Hawkins results mean what he says they do. That's not simply an issue of intuition vs. logic, but belief vs. unbelief.
Hawkins answers his critics and skeptics
From the ancient Greek, skeptikos denotes the philosophy that truth
is unknowable and certainty of knowledge is impossible (as so stated
by the followers of Pyrrho). This observation is in agreement with a
basic premise of consciousness research, as stated in all of Dr.
Hawkins' books, especially Truth vs. Falsehood (2005).
As also pointed out by Descartes, the human mind, unaided, is unable
to differentiate res cogitans/interna (how things appear to the mind,
such as perception or opinion) from res externa/extensa (reality,
nature). Socrates made the same observation that `men seek only
the good but are unable to discern illusory good (appearance)from
essence (the real good)'.
The value of Dr. Hawkins' work is that a means of discerning
truth from falsehood was discovered that bypasses mentalization or
opinion, both of which are of the linear dimension and thus subject
to error. The system instead depends on the nonlinear characteristics
of the truth of consciousness itself that, like empty sky, is not
subject to linear limitation.
Whereas, operationally, skepticism has had benefits in revealing
false claims and foolishness, skepticism itself has often been
foolish, as demonstrated regularly by vocal denunciations of every
single important discovery in history, especially in the sciences
(medicine, physics, etc.) up to and including quantum physics. It is,
of course, also traditional (actually de rigueur) for skeptics to
deny the reality of the entire nonlinear paradigm of context as well
as Divinity itself. Thus, the skeptic is basically a relativist to
whom hermeneutics is apparently an unknown discipline.
If, as all skeptics believe, actual truth is unknowable, then their
own premises and arguments are also fallacious, and thus, they are
hung up by their own petard. That is exactly what consciousness level
160 denotes. (The Skeptics Dictionary calibrates at 160, as do the
critics of kinesiology.)
The basic requirements for the kinesiological test for truth is that
the questioners must calibrate at 200 or over, and the intention of
the question to be answered must also be in integrity and
nonpositional. Therefore, it is invalid to try to either prove or
disprove anything that is based on a biased premise. According to the
research reported in Truth vs. Falsehood, the critics of kinesiology
should get negative results. The fact that they do so confirms the
One reason why the level of truth of skepticism calibrates so low is
that it is merely a variant of nihilism (calibration level 120). The
skeptic also falsely claims to be an authoritative arbiter of truth
from falsehood, which is a wishful illusion. Kinesiology
calibrates at 600, the level of the emergence of the nonlinear
(context), which is not subject to the linear (content), and stems
from a totally different paradigm. The truth of content is a
consequence of context, which, in turn, is an expression of intention
(the Heisenberg principle). Notable is that ad hominem attacks also
calibrate at level 160.
Consciousness research is a developing discipline that has been used
successfully worldwide for decades by numerous study groups and tens
of thousands of people, as well as at the highest levels of foreign
governments when it was successfully utilized to offset an imminent
ballistic missile war. The upside of the method is that it allows for
investigation of aspects of life inaccessible to ordinary mentation.
It was also expected that the discernment of truth from falsehood
would not be welcomed by those aspects of society that thrive and
depend on falsehood for gain and benefit.
Misunderstanding of consciousness research arose from the fact that
its introduction in Power vs. Force did not state the strict
requirements for the kinesiological test method itself, i.e., (1)
both participants have to calibrate over level 200 (the level that
distinctly delineates truth from falsehood; (2) the intention of the
test has to be integrous and also calibrated over 200; and (3) the
proposition has to be made in the form of a statement and not as a
question. Thus, the test cannot be validly used for personal gain or
to prove or disprove a biased opinion or presumption but instead
requires a scientific detachment.
The original work was done with spiritually-oriented or na�ve test
subjects and children (as demonstrated in the video, Power vs. Force,
1995). The test was also demonstrated publicly to lecture audiences
worldwide. It was only later (around 1999-2000) that is was
discovered that for the test to work, the basic requirements
enumerated above had to be met when it was attempted by people who
calibrated at less than 200 and by those who tried to disprove its
validity with trick questions.
Because the essential information was not available initially, its
omission, led to misunderstanding and the negative results of
misapplication. The necessary requirements were specifically included
in subsequent books: The Eye of the I(2001); I: Reality and
Subjectivity (2003); and Truth vs. Falsehood (2005), as well as in
the forthcoming books, Transcending the Levels of Consciousness
(2006), and Devotional Nonduality (late 2006).
Unlike skepticism, consciousness research is not intended to prove or
disprove anything but merely to discern information not previously
available by mentation, reason, or supposition. Calibration mere
results in a number, the significance of which is inferred by
its location on the widely-known Map of Consciousness (Maps of
consciousness are the focus of upcoming presentations at Noetic
Sciences conferences with speaker Edgar Mitchell.)
Akin to consciousness research, the field of skepticism is also
devoted to discerning truth from falsehood. By comparison, however,
skepticism itself is limited by its dependence on the linear mental
domain about which skepticism itself is dubious.
The objectives of the skeptic could be better fulfilled by taking
advantage of the nonlinear technique by which the profound influence
of context can be identified. By analogy, one cannot utilize
Newtonian physics or differential calculus to try to prove or
disprove quantum mechanics, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or
E=mc2. Skepticism needs the assistance of much higher knowledge to
keep up with increasing information that allows access to a
more expanded paradigm of Reality. As quoted from Time in "Cosmic
(Lemonick and Nash, Nov. 29, 2004), "Dealing with cranks is an
occupational hazard for most scientists�. Those who study the
tend to be bombarded with letters, calls, and emails from would-be
geniuses that insist they have refuted Einstein or devised a new
theory of gravity or disproved the Big Bang. The telltale signs of
crankdom are so consistent � a grandiose theory, minimal
a messianic zeal � that scientists can usually spot them a mile
Note that the calibrated statements in Truth vs. Falsehood are
bulwarked by 60 pages of references so as to provide a wider context.
Consciousness research has no investment in opinion and instead views
a specific numerical reading as one would a barometer, altimeter, or
temperature-gauge reading. The totality of the work stands on its own
rather than on agreement or external authority.
If mankind had been capable of discerning truth from falsehood and
were aligned with truth rather than politicized enthusiasms, all the
wars would have been precluded for every tyrant in history, up to and
including the present day, calibrating far below level 200. Thus, if
the author of the research has any leanings, it is that of preference
for truth over falsehood.
Overall, the consciousness researcher is sympathetic and in agreement
with the goal of skepticism to integrously discern the truth and
expose falsehood. The disagreement is only over methodology and level
of sophistication and accuracy. A study of skepticism itself,
however, does result in skepticism about skepticism. On the other
hand, it has revealed some really outrageous trends and therefore has
been of service.
None of the books on consciousness research are even about
kinesiology at all. It is merely a useful tool to confirm findings
that are obvious to integrous intelligence, with the exception of
historical information that would not be obtainable otherwise. The
pages on identification of malignant messianic narcissism would seem
to be more worthy of attention rather than irrelevancies. Public
recognition of severe fallacy would have saved the lives of over 100
million people in just this lifetime. To miss the forest for the
trees is indeed a serious limitation. The overall conclusions would
obviously stand on their own without verification by kinesiology,
which is merely a way to confirm what is obvious to inner wisdom.
I reject the notion that reason is merely "linear," as the article suggests; reason can and is very much in-formed by intuition and is also capable of learning from emotion. It's also something of a "straw-man" argument to suggest that anyone who disagrees with Hawkins is a skeptic when it comes to truth. I'm not a skeptic, and I do believe we can approach knowledge of the truth. What I'm skeptical about is that Hawkins method gives us "truth." I maintain there's a distinction between truth and the unconscious attitude which AK measures.
Valid point, however as Lou Fournier Marzeles a Hawkins forum moderator puts it
All well and good but if you are sceptical about kinesiology research and if one believes anything that has been researched by Hawkins is his opinion only, this argument falls over anyway.
Back to square one. !!
Michael from Sidney, (Or is it Sidney from Michael)
Thanks for your help with this, as I do not articulate Hawkins well, or communicate it to others
as well as I would like, but feel that he has moved
consciousness "research" forward. How does law enforcement stack up?
Scotland Yard 210
Why do the bad guys and terrorists get away? Could be the answer right there.
There is a note in the back revealing much more accurate results if the measurement is taken by someone between 460-480, which leaves at least 90%
of us out, I'm afraid.
Here is a representative interview with Dr. Hawkins: http://www.newconnexion.net/ar...e/09-04/hawkins.html
And a yahhoo discussion group devoted to Hawkins' research:
A Nobel Peace Prize winner(1962) and Nobel Chemistry Prize winner (1954) and co-author of Orthomolecular Psychiatry with David Hawkins, M.D.,P.H.D.:
Another mystery is that David Hawkins and Ken Wilber seem to be completely unaware of each other. Aren't they both related to Krishna?
The Ken Wilber open discussion forum @ Shambhala has several threads on Hawkins in progress:
More than enough grist for the mill...
"The findings and calibrations in the book do not represent the author's opinion. They represent his research. There is no opinion here to take issue with.
Then I assume that Hawkins� numbers represent an average of dozens if not hundreds of test subjects including conservatives, liberals, black, white, men, women, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans, New Zealanders, Fiji Islanders, young, old, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, etc., etc., etc., etc. If not then we�re simply looking into Hawkin�s subconscious opinion of things. If he is God then that opinion is going to be quite objective.
Kevin Pringle who moderates a Hawkins Yahoo forum did a summery of what was covered. . .
Is this the group that wouldn't allow discussion of that well thought-out critique?
Micheal, I can guess that you're disappointed that I and others haven't gotten excited about Hawkins research and findings. My exchanges with others on similar threads on this discussion board haven't done much to encourage me in that direction. But, just to reassure you that I'm not completely close-minded, I'll summarize for you what I've done:
1. I've read all the posts which you and others have written and have considered what you had to say.
2. I've visited the web site of Hawkins' radio broadcasts you recommended and listened to a couple of the interviews.
3. I researched AK and read extensively about what it can and cannot tell us.
4. I've read reviews of Hawkins' books on the Amazon.com web site.
5. I've applied principles of critical thinking to Hawkins' approach and found a couple of factual innacuracies and a major logical fallacy. (That doesn't bode well . . . )
6. In light of all of the above, I've tried to clarify what AK can tell us, and what it can't . . .
My main point, here, is that I think this kind of approach is far more reliable and responsible in getting at the truth of things. Our human reason is the faculty given to us by God to help us to comprehend truth, and it is not a narrow, linear computer-like operation as Hawkins' characterizes it. Reason IS our spiritual intelligence, and it is informed by intuition, imagination, sensory and emotional experiences. Hawkins sets an arbitrary limit on the competence of reason, thus immunizing himself and his (highly calibrated) writing from rational critique. To criticize AK and some of the assumptions in his work is thus invalidated from the start, and one is left, instead, with the "superior wisdom" of one's own micro-motor intelligence, which is thought to somehow be onto objective truths beyond the realm of authentic rational inquiry.
I know that Hawkins is an esteemed scientist and a good man, but he doesn't really seem to understand philosophy or theology, or else he doesn't have much use for it. What he proposes as an alternative is ultimately de-humanizing, however, reducing human spiritual knowing to operations indistinguishable from "divining" for wells. It is a small step from here to the occult.
But the biggest fallacy of all is that he is proposing a system which seems to provide a means of knowing that is "scientific" and "objective" when there's absolutely no way to test what ultimately turns out to be matters of opinion. That one is required to place a great deal of faith in this approach and system also seems to escape him. There really are matters of belief on the table, here, for Hawkins is just as incapable of "proving" the validity of his system as I am proving that Christ rose from the dead. So it turns out that Hawkins' followers really are "believers," of sorts, and highly committed ones, at that. That they are also unwilling to discuss critical arguments suggests something closed and almost cultic, imo.
Careful, Michael . . .
I still want to get 500 envelopes with vitamin C and another 500 with Sweet&Low and watch half of the audience go "weak" and half "strong" without knowing what is in the envelopes. That's a neat trick however it's done.
Since we're talking about chemical substances and not opinions, there, it's possible that the body's electromagnetic field can indeed pick up on the differences and translate that into muscle resistance. Calibrating the bible, philosophers, etc. is another matter, however.
I am not about getting people excited by Hawkins work.
�but I do get excited about well thought out criticism which this forum provides.
This is not common out there is internet forum land.
To be honest I can�t even get Hawkins devotees excited about useful applications of his work �Seriously!!!
For example I did a piece on what it would take to get Iraq to a workable democracy. I used Hawkins Map of Consciousness, calibrations and historical contexts to extrapolate possible workable steps to achieve a sustainable meaningful democratic system for that war torn country.
After two weeks research and a very well written critique (ok my opinion) I posted it on a Hawkins forum to open it up for discussion.
I got hardly bites from the Hawkins �fans� I wouldn�t even mind if someone shot my findings down with well thought out criticism. I don�t take it personally.
I later found out by private emails from the moderator I was lucky to even get it on the forum.
I have my theories�
My two pet ones are ��
1/ Most Hawkins based forums are well entrenched in the GREEN meme (Spiral Dynamics)
2/ Misunderstandings regarding kinesiology and how it applies to Hawkins work.
I�m not too harsh on forum moderators as discussions can quickly degenerate into big slanging matches which serve no useful purpose, even on so called �spiritual� based forums.
I feel well informed meaningful debate is a narrow path sometimes��
It�s Michael from Sydney �.(down-under)
Hawkins is aware of Ken Wilber. Wilbers book �Sex Ecology and Spirit� is cited in the bibliography of Hawkins PhD thesis � Qualitative & Quantitative Analysis and Calibration of Consciousness
Also someone asked if he was aware of Wilber at one of his public lectures. He said he was and thought highly of his work.
I must have missed that one. I found that amazing.
In November 2004 well before Hawkins new book was available, a friend of mine who has also done kinesiology training did some research regarding what level of consciousness one would have to be to calibrate accurately.
We have found the Tester needs to be 461.5 LoC or
higher and the Testee needs to be 484.5 LoC or higher before accurate calibrations can be obtained
I posted the results on a forum under �Calibrating � what makes it work.�
Hawkins always claimed that one has to be over 200 before one can even do any kinesiology �.I always suspected calibrating while using kinesiology required a much higher level of consciousness to be accurate.
��.and yes your absolutely right �.that eliminates 90% of the population who can calibrate with any accuracy. Only 51% of the population of the USA is over 200.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3|