Hello to all. This is my first post on this forum and it's very interesting to see the discussion of Dr. Hawkin's trilogy of books as well as the use of muscle testing.

First, after being raised a Christian and to this day Know Christ as my Savior and to all who accepts, one feels that one qualifies to meet certain criteria from the administrator's reference to those following Dr. Hawkins views from an position other than that steeped in Christianity.

Second, after thoughtfully reading the books, Power vs Force, The Eye of the I and I, one feels somewhat qualified to comment on this topic.

From what is written on this topic so far, it would seem that the understanding and intention of the writing has been missed. To try to keep this simple for better understanding, one should try to see how one's thoughts come about and try to understand the animalistic ego/self from which they originate. The ego/self has been reinforced in your life and others by it's very need to survive. What has reinforced the ego/self? Every experience that you have had in your life to this day. Your ego/self has made judgement and taken positions on each event so as to cause yourself to better survive. This is an instinct developed over eons and can be seen in all animal life. This many times also takes the form of control over others due to consciousness levels that fall below the level of integrity.

What separates us from other animal life is God's Grace. We were given a spirit plus the ultimate gift of the Holy Spirit. If one can realize that they are not the brain/body, but they are spirit inhabiting such, the one has taken the first step to a higher consciousness. This truth should be fundamental to a Christian.

The books lead one to the conclusion that one must shed the control of the ego/self and it's animalistic thought's and behaviors, and realize that the spirit, cojoined with the Holy Spirit, will cause us to drop positionality and judgements that inhibit our spiritual growth.

Plain and simple, the book's are about spirituality and it's growth toward our Creator. When one look's only at content, they see a very narrow picture. When one takes in consideration context, they begin to see the glorious unfolding of creation. One can see Religion as a beautiful step in the seeking of God and another can see it as an attept to control the masses. It may in fact be both.

When the woman that was caught in the act of adultry was brought before the Good Lord Jesus, my Savior, his thoughts were not one of judgement, but one of compassion, understanding and Love. The idea of different levels of consciousness in Dr. Hawkins book reflects how one puts positionality and judgement to everyday situations and how those positions originate from the ego/self and not of the spirit. The ego/self represents the accusers of the woman caught in the act of adultry. The Good Lord did not use the ego/self to judge the woman, but instead used his spirit, God Manifest, to understand and have compassion.

To understand further, read the book's. Now for the muscle testing. I at first had trouble with this do to a positionality. I believe it is a possibility that it works and have even tried it, but, I don't use it often and have not considered it a priority. Seeking God is priority.

Winding down, One see's that the Good Lord Jesus summed up the Commandments in two steps. 1) Love the Lord your God with all that you have. 2)Love your neighbor as yourself. It would seem impossible to become one who grow's closer to God without mastering these two commandments. To understand with love and compassion the adultress, murderer, lier, Bin Laden or any other human on this earth is paramount to this growth. Drop your positions and seek Love. This triology of book's will help if you let yourself out of the box that has been created by your ego/self.

Love
Victor

Phil,

Thanks for mentioning the double blind testing.
That is the kind of information I was looking for.
I thought about the endorsements, none of which appear on the second two books. Hawkins is well connected, had the largest psychiatric practice in New York City, is listed in Who's Who etc, so Mother Theresa, Iacocca and Walton probably looked it over and wrote a blurb. I thought about that a couple of weeks ago.

I,

Welcome Obviously you have been on a path of spiritual growth for some time. I hope to learn
from you. Just talking about levels of growth is conducive to such growth to a point, as long as we don't make it a substitute for seeking God or come up with a new caste system. I already know in a general way what the cult awareness and apologetics ministries are going to do with this when they get wind of it and it won't be pretty. I've fallen for alot of spiritual chaff before such as the Human Potential movement and the Word of Faith movement, so my track record of discernment leaves much to be desired.

caritas,

mm <*))))))><

Yes, welcome "I." Thank you for sharing.

You wrote: Plain and simple, the book's are about spirituality and it's growth toward our Creator. . .

I think I see what's going on now with this Hawkins movement. It seems that you and many others, apparently, have found in his books a religious/spiritual perspective that you had somehow not received from a religious tradition. That seems to be what the affirming book reviewers on Amazon.com are saying as well. That it all seems to be backed up with hard-core science-- quantum physics, math, calibrated responses, etc. -- is apparently reassuring as well to many. So be it. You can have the spirituality without the latter, however; as you and others are noting, some of the core principles are already articulated in the Gospels.

Michael has shared some important precautions, however, and some of the exchanges on this thread have raised other significant points concerning the limitations of Hawkins methods and his "map of consciousness." My hope is that, for all of you who've been turned on by Hawkins to a spirituality of detachment and enlightenment, that you will find your way to an established religious tradition/community and continue your spiritual formation in that context. You'll go a lot farther along the journey that way.

Very perceptive. Free form spirituality is in.

One very problematic area, (hitting my forehead
like the V-8 commercial,) is the invalidation of the Old Testament text, which Jews and Christians consider to be inspired.

This flies in the face of much evidence to the contrary, from manuscript research on the Torah scrolls to archaeology and messianic prophecy.

With the exception of Genesis, Psalms and Proverbs, Hawkins calibrates the Torah at below 200, the minimum level of integrity. If he's lucky
the Christians will get him before the B'nai Brith
or the Anti-Defamation League. lol

I think I learned something anyway, and it got me thinking about higher thoughts and where they come from.

caritas,

mm <*))))><

To some extent, Hawkins may well fit in with such fairly reputable researchers as Ian Stevenson (reincarnation), Gary Schwartz (afterlife), folks conducting clinical trials in complementary and alternative medicine as funded by the NIH, the global consciousness project at Princeton and other such projects. I am glad these researchers are out there, often placing their professional reputations and funding sources at risk, with great courage and the most well meaning of intentions for humankind.

We need to distinguish between their experimental accomplishments and their theological extrapolations. As long as their hypotheses, methods, controls, data, results and conclusions are scientifically rigorous, statistically significant and pass a modicum of peer review, we need to take their body of work seriously. Even when certain aspects of their experiments are flawed, such as may be detected by CSICOP, which is a tad biased, in my view, we need to distinguish between fatal flaws and less serious flaws.

When it comes to theological extrapolations, however, we should hold those tentatively, for they can be consistent with any number of hermeneutics, which is to say interpreted and applied consistently (logically), coherently (internally), congruently (externally), consonantly (hypothetically) and consiliently (interdisciplinarily). In fact, quite often, such extrapolations are not well grounded, architectonically, on firm philosophical and metaphysical footings.

For instance, in the case at hand, we should be mindful that nondiscursive and nonconceptual processes, which are neither reflective nor intuitive but rather come from some form of non-intuitive immediate knowledge, do not, in principle, lend themselves to schematization or systematization, which is to say that they do NOT convey information about reality that we can use to increase our modeling power of same. All we can do is to create and nurture an environment that fosters such experiences through certain well known ascetical disciplines. Eastern spiritual technology leads one to experiences, existentially, but not to essentialistic articulations of those experiences, which is to say, buyer beware of ontologies derived from mysticism, other than such a characterization that simply affirms relationship and love by the experiencer's very manner of living and moving and being in love and compassion, in the now and awareness, love and benevolence, honesty and truth.

Look at this schema:


Thus it is that Kelley Ross writes:

quote:

no rational or intelligible system can be built from mystical intuitions, analyzable or unanalyzable. This, however, should be no more than what we would expect given the contradictory claims of mystical or dogmatic authorities in world religions. The antinomical choices between mystical intuitions as intellectual or sensible, of independent or identical objects, of a divine substance (personal or impersonal) or ultimate Emptiness, cannot be resolved on the evidence of mystical knowledge, since the knowledge of different mystics confirms each of these and, as Hume would say, the evidence of one tends to refute the evidence of the other.

Please visit if further interested:
Intuition and Mysticism in Kantian Philosophy by Dr. Kelley Ross

which is contra this:

quote:

"Ontology need not be speculative - it is, after all, only the theology of existence; anyone who's aware that he exists already has access to its highest formulations and beyond. There is only one absolute truth; all the rest are semi-facts spawned from the artifacts of limited perception and positionality. "To be or not to be" isn't a choice; one may decide to be this or that, but to be is, simply, the only fact there is.

All of the foregoing has been expressed at various times in man's intellectual history by sages who have moved beyond duality in their awareness. But even then, to claim that the comprehension of the non duality of existence is superior to its realization as dual is again to fall into an illusion. There is, ultimately, neither duality nor nonduality; there's only awareness. Only awareness itself can state that it's beyond all concepts such as "is" or "is not." That must be so, because "is" can be conceived only by consciousness itself.

Awareness itself is beyond even consciousness. Therefore, it may be said that the Absolute is unknowable exactly because it's beyond knowing, or beyond the reach of consciousness itself. Those who have attained such a state of awareness report that it can't be described and can have no meaning for anyone without the experience of that context. Nonetheless, this is the true state of Reality, universally and eternally - we merely fail to recognize it. Such a recognition is the essence of enlightenment and the final resolution of the evolution of consciousness, to the point of self-transcendence."

...from "POWER VS. FORCE" Dr. David R. Hawkins, pp 232-233

Now, consider this:


Kelley Ross writes:

quote:

Rejecting internal substance, the soul, we are driven to Materialism. Rejecting external substance, matter, we are driven to Idealism. Rejecting both, we are driven to Positivism, which denies metaphysics altogether, rendering the search for "substantive existence" as a pseudo-problem. These have been the great metaphysical alternatives of the last century or so, idealism (Hegel), materialism (Marxism), and positivism (Comte, Ayer). A fourth conclusion, however, is possible, which is to reject the choice between internal and external and deny that substantive existence is either of them. This is rather stronger than what, for the moment, we will consider in relation to Undecidability, though it is the ultimate resolution of the dilemma. We are left with a kind of phenomenological suspension of judgment because we don't have the metaphysical categories here for what the "third thing" would be that is neither internal nor external. Here we must consider first that is not so much neither internal nor external but both that we are stuck with.

Please visit Ontological Undecidability by Kelley Ross for more info.

So, what you have by these nondualists is, in essence, a declaration that the ontological riddle is a pseudoriddle, that there is neither duality nor nonduality. I think it would be better for them to state that as an hypothesis, based on imaginative post-reflective abduction, and not as an apodictic axiom/datum of a nonconceptual experience? I prefer the ontological hypothetical and fallibilism.

As for awareness itself being beyond the reach of consciousness , while it is true that such epistemic capacities as Peirce's abduction, Maritain's connaturality and Fries' non-intuitive immediate knowledge are faculties of which people are not ordinarily aware, which is to say are human faculties of which we are ordinarily unconscious, our discovery of them indeed comes about from the same Socratic method and logic of falsification as employed in science, which is essentially the use of our imaginative faculties to construct rules to explain phenomena followed by the testing of the logical consequences of those rules against those phenomena. [I conservatively paraphrased Kelley Ross.]

I am going to post some notes and correspondence in the next post to make y'all rue the day you coaxed me back


peace, friends all
jb

Here is the excerpted correspondence but I will mark in bold what you can gather that is relevant to the prior post. The rest is left in context for any who would dig deeper:

The normative sciences, quid juris, mediate between phenomenology, quid facti, and metaphysics, quid facti (invoking Peirce).

The dianoetic, quid juris, mediates between the perinoetic, quid facti, and the ananoetic, quid facti (importing Maritain).

Perinoetic and ananoetic approaches can advance in matters of fact, quid facti, independent of any relations of ideas, quid juris, via falsification, modus tollens, the denying mode (importing Popper).

The justification of the normative sciences has involved the invocation of notions of intuition, self-evident principles, immediate knowledge (including mysticism) and non-intuitive immediate knowledge. This justification process grapples with problems of axiomatization, causal disjunction, circular reference, ensemble vouching, infinite regress and godelian constraints on formalization and wrestles with problems of ineffability and nondiscursive meditation, leading to maxims like we can model the rules but never explain them, or to notions that we can see the truth of certain propositions but we cannot prove them, or to imperatives like taste and see, or logic requires premises but it cannot prove those premises, or that reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions (all pretty much invoking Hume and heeding Godel). In this sense, then, we are merely about rearranging givens when dealing with analytic truths and logical derivations.

In our justification or grounding attempts of the dianoetic approaches, we appear to be discussing epistemic capacities of which people are not ordinarily aware, which is to say that we are considering human faculties of which we are ordinarily unconscious. Such would include Fries' non-intuitive immediate knowledge.

This Friesian Criticism would seem to correspond to Maritain's knowledge through connaturality, which he adds to reason and intuition as a form of nonconceptual knowledge, which is produced in the intellect but not in virtue of conceptual connections and by way of demonstration. [from Maritain's Range of Reason ] Maritain writes: "In this knowledge through union or inclination, connaturality or congeniality, the intellect is at play not alone, but together with affective inclinations and the dispositions of the will, and is guided and directed by them. It is not rational knowledge, knowledge through the conceptual, logical and discursive exercise of Reason. But it is really and genuinely knowledge, though obscure and perhaps incapable of giving account of itself, or of being translated into words."

This Friesian Criticism would also seem to correspond to Peirce's abduction, a faculty by which we make up new rules to explain novel and surprising facts, such abductive activities derived from the very structure of meaning , itself, as distinguished from any empirical hypotheses based on our sensory experience [Wikipedia], abduction as such being an integral aspect of his fallibilism, wherein all truth is provisional, all propositions necessarily taking into account a coefficient of probability. To an extent, Peirce's division of theoretical speculation into the coenoscopic and idioscopic correspond with Maritain's dianoetic and perinoetic, such that the coenoscopic and dianoetic are concerned with philosophy, the truth of which comes within the range of every man's normal experience although they escape the untrained eye precisely because they permeate our whole lives. [from Peirce's Divisions of Science ]. The idioscopic and perinoetic are concerned with the specific sciences.

If it is explicitly stated in Friesian epistemology that propositions constituting the "critique of knowledge," i.e. epistemology itself, are empirical and a posteriori rather than non-empirical and a priori, as are the propositions of ethics and metaphysics [per Kelley Ross re: Leonard Nelson's Socratic Method and Critical Philosophy ], then there is at least something implicit in the epistemologies of both Peirce (who borrowed the term pragmatism from Kant) and Maritain, which is to suggest in Peirce's abduction and Maritain's connaturality, that accepts the Friesian Criticism, rejecting the dogmatic disjunction of reflection and intuition and affirming that, while the justification and grounding of the coenoscopic and dianoetic can proceed neither from proof (by way of logical derivation, analytic propositions or tautologies) nor from demonstration (display of an intuitive ground), it can proceed from deduction , which doesn't prove our epistemological propositions of non-intuitive immediate knowledge, abduction or connaturality, but which has the same cognitive force as any of our demonstrations of intuitive grounds. The discovery of our faculties of non-intuitive immediate knowledge, connaturality and abduction, so to speak quid facti, such faculties grounding our coenscopic and dianoetic approaches, our philosophical enterprises, so to speak the quid juris that mediates our other epistemological activities quid facti, comes about from the same Socratic method and logic of falsification as employed in science, which is essentially the use of our imaginative faculties to construct rules to explain phenomena followed by the testing of the logical consequences of those rules against those phenomena. The grounding, however provisional (and even nondiscursive in origin), of our dianeoetic and coenoscopic and philosophical approaches, provides the springboard to both metaphysical and moral realisms, where, metaphysically, the ontological is undecidable, in principle, even as the ontological hypothetical allows us to progressively improve our modeling power of reality, where, morally, the is-ought disjunct is rejected through a distinction of instrumental and intrinsic goods, the identity and symmetry of intrinsic goods only broken by consciousness, which produces the same asymmetry between is and ought as it does between subject and object. Compounding this apparent disjunct between is and ought (overcome by Adler by the use of self-evident prescriptive premises, which seems to be the explicit affirmation of intrinsic goods), is the polynomic nature of values, the manner in which they tend to vary independently of one another - the right, the good, the beautiful and the holy - life's circumstances yielding them up in all sorts of apparently incongruous combinations (like the rollers on a slot machine with cherries, bells, lemons and oranges). Enter Kelley Ross's Friesian theory of religious value based on Otto's numinosity: "If religion offers consolation that the world makes ultimate sense and has a meaning or a purpose, despite all evidence to the contrary, it is holy things that present the tangible (or perhaps intangible) quality of that consolation. Religion therefore reassures us that deep in the nature of things, whether here or in the hereafter, all the positive aspects are together. For religion the holy is precisely how the positive aspects of value are connected."

end of excerpts

Comment: The Buddha would not be pleased with the theorizing by these nondualists. I theorize because I'm a panentheist.

pax,
jb

who'll give y'all a few days to digest this, if this post has not turned out to be a wet blanket

Johnboy, I kind of followed you on the first post, but you totally lost me on the second.

quote:

The normative sciences, quid juris, mediate between phenomenology, quid facti, and metaphysics, quid facti (invoking Peirce).

The dianoetic, quid juris, mediates between the perinoetic, quid facti, and the ananoetic, quid facti (importing Maritain).

Perinoetic and ananoetic approaches can advance in matters of fact, quid facti, independent of any relations of ideas, quid juris, via falsification, modus tollens, the denying mode (importing Popper).

I don't know who you think you're talking to here. Not me! Can you say what you were meaning to say in "plain English"?

- Mike

quote:

I'm sure you can see the problems we run into when we make levels of consciousness the criterion for evaluating Truth and then use kinesiology to determine levels of consciousness. What happens, then, is that kinesiology becomes the means for determining what's true, or more true, or a higher truth, etc., and I think we need to give those premises a lot more critical evaluation. From a Christian perspective, it's unthinkable that this should in any way be given the same priority we do the Church's long discernment of the Truth about God revealed in Christ.

Hold your cards, folks, we have a Bingo!

That seems to me to be the core issue at the heart of this discussion, Phil. I would extend it to other areas, like the teachings of gurus, philosophers, transpersonal psychologists, trance channelers, quantum physicists and so forth. Christian teaching isn't dependent on any of these for its authority.

- Mike

We need to distinguish between their experimental accomplishments and their theological extrapolations. As long as their hypotheses, methods, controls, data, results and conclusions are scientifically rigorous, statistically significant and pass a modicum of peer review, we need to take their body of work seriously. Even when certain aspects of their experiments are flawed, such as may be detected by CSICOP, which is a tad biased, in my view, we need to distinguish between fatal flaws and less serious flaws.

I think that's the main issue here, JB, along with the one Mike brings to our attention from one of my earlier posts. It turns out that Hawkins' science is criticized by scientists, his math by mathemmaticians, and kinesiology doesn't hold up under the rigors of double-blind studies (see the Amazon.com reviews, cited above). Using all that to back up what seems to be his personal religious and spiritual views and making that seem to be somehow "objectively" validated is deceptive, at best. I'm glad people are finding a helpful spiritual perspective here, but there are some dangerous implications: e.g. a kind of cultishness and spiritual caste system, as Michael points out.

From Michael: With the exception of Genesis, Psalms and Proverbs, Hawkins calibrates the Torah at below 200, the minimum level of integrity.

I hope Hawkins isn't saying this, because Psalms and Proverbs aren't part of the Torah. Torah is the first five books of the Bible (aka the Penteteuch). These five books are the core scriptures of the Jewish religion -- indeed, the only ones recognized by some groups. Seems Hawkins has a very low view of Judaism; maybe a little anti-Semitism creeping into his calibrations, here? (Hey, just a thought -- it does seem to be going around lately.

re: plain English

see only the bold for the exoterica

re: the other audience, who may or may not ever happen by SPlace, the rest is the esoterica

I am jb and I approve this message.

Blah... blah... blah...

This board is an example of everything you must move beyond in order to experience God as a Reality within you. I know this because I Am experiencing God as a Reality within me and it is miles away from this narcissistic intellectualization.

You are not the body, nor are you the mind or what it thinks. Once you rest in what you Really are you'll know undeniably that this is True.

Screw Hawkins work, screw Christianity, and screw the idea of "God"... God is not an idea; God is the sum-total and the source of all things. Of course God is beyond duality and non-duality. These are just fabrications of a mind split from its source. To give infinity a number does not make it so.

Once you have the courage to take a leap of faith and move into something alien to you, namely, a 'state beyond thought', you will know God as your Living Creator inseparable from what you are. You will know the Christ within. Someone trying to convince you otherwise will make you laugh; it would be as if someone is trying to convince you there is no Sun shining on Earth.

Is this message not jiving with what you think a loving person should be like? You give your kid heck for running across the street without looking, because you love him. This is no different.

Stop buying into your cherished �ideas� and �beliefs.� Knowing God is not dependant on either.

Ashtar?

I Am



--------------------
"There is no darkness beyond ignorance . . ."
- It's obvious. -

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb] re: plain English

see only the bold for the exoterica

re: the other audience, who may or may not ever happen by SPlace, the rest is the esoterica

I am jb and I approve this message. [/qb]

LOL! Johnboy, no offense intended. (Now I need to look up "exoterica" and "esoterica"). I guess lofty thoughts just come naturally to you.

TBiscuit76, you come across very defensively on this thread. What is it about this discussion that bothers you so much? You also seem very disrepectful of the people you're discussing things with and you don't know anything about them. You call what's going on here "narcissistic intellectualization" and point to yourself as one who is experiencing God. That all comes across as arrogance, especially when you compare us to children who need correction.

You write:

quote:

"There is no darkness beyond ignorance . . ."
- It's obvious. -

How do you know this is "obvious?" I don't think the devil is very ignorant, but he is in the deepest darkness. My understanding is that sin is not simply ignorance, but rebellion. I disagree with your premise here and don't think it represents the understanding of evil in Christianity.

- Mike

(Phil, if I am out of line here, send me a private message.)

Correction, I should have said Moses and the Prophets rather than Torah.

Judaism

The teachings of Abraham calibrate at 985; the
practice that was current at the time of Moses calibrated at 770 --- the level of truth of the Torah. Modern Judaism calibrates at 499. The Kaballah is 720; the Zohar is 730.

-Power vs Force pp 273-274

Here is a problem. Hawkins 2nd and third books are sans index, so I am having trouble finding where he calibrated Genesis at 660, Psalms at 590 and Proverbs at 350. Everything else in the Old Testament calibrates below 200. Perhaps it was on a radio program, but he appears to be contradicting himself. How can the Torah be 770 and Abraham 985 if Genesis is 660 and Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deutoronomy below 200?

Last week I read my first couple of Kabbalah books, The Essential Kabbalah by Daniel C. Matt and God is a Verb by Rabbi David Cooper.
Awesome stuff, especially for one such as myself who has previously considered Kabbalah strictly
VERBOTEN!

http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday4.htm

Yom Kippur begins at sundown Friday

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

MM9, Thanks for the welcome. I do believe that we can learn from one another but our greatest teacher lives within us, the Holy Spirit of God. Your caution and candor are also appreciated.

Phil, Thanks for your welcome also. Seek and you shall find.

Your quote-"My hope is that, for all of you who've been turned on by Hawkins to a spirituality of detachment and enlightenment, that you will find your way to an established religious tradition/community and continue your spiritual formation in that context. You'll go a lot farther along the journey that way."

First off, my spirituality has been turned on by the Good Lord and if any thing in my post leads you to believe otherwise, please disregard that notion. Thank you for your concern though, I do attend a local bible believing/ bible teaching church. There is much to be said about the fellowship with my brothers and sisters. I especially look forward to praise and worship.

I do have a concern in your quote-"that you will find your way to an established religious tradition/community and continue your spiritual formation in that context."

I feel that you meant this in a loving way (a stay out of the cults kind of way), and in that context, I agree. If you would clarify this, it would be appreciated.

Lastly, your quote-"You'll go a lot farther along the journey that way."

I really hope that you see a person's spiritual journey/growth as one that is led by God and not by man. However, we can all learn much from one another as long as the Good Lord is the leader.

An interesting thing happens when you 'EARNESTLY' seek truth from God, it is revealed.

With maximum love and respect,
I

Mike, you're OK. Just expressing your opinion is all I hear, and far less judgmentally than Ashtar.

"I," I agree with your points about being led by the spirit. My point was that every authentic religious tradition in the world emphasizes the importance of belonging to a spiritual community and coming under the discipline of its teachings. I just don't see spiritual growth going very far apart from these groundings. The Buddhists, for example, emphasize commitment to the Buddha, the sangha (community), and the dharma (the teaching). In Christianity, this would correspond to commitment to Christ, membership in the Church, and religious education. Far from being merely "man-made," this seems to be the way God forms human beings in the Spirit. I just offer this as feedback in a spirit of concern, hoping that you will give it consideration. No judgment or put-down was intended.

- - -

Michael, maybe another thread on kaballah would be a good one? With Madonna popularizing this form of Jewish mysticism, it seems to be timely.

Here are a few links to studies on Applied Kinesiology, which is what Hawkins is doing:

Not different results from placebos

Applied kinesiology has been suggested for many conditions. But high-quality research is limited, and applied kinesiology has not been shown to be effective for the diagnosis or treatment of any disease.

Actual damage done in some cases: Just as Mesmerism unwittingly exploited the power of suggestion -- the same potent psychophysiologic phenomenon of clinical hypnosis -- AK might provide a way to test psychological make-up of subjects (eg, conditioning, expectation, suggestibility or other personality factors). On the other hand, AK could turn out to be unreliable or not as good as other tests now in use. I don't know of anyone who is studying AK scientifically to find any valid use.

This web site considers it a form of New Age medicine and potentially subject to demonic influence. Hmmm . . .

Quackwork.org isn't very impressed either. The Bottom Line


The concepts of applied kinesiology do not conform to scientific facts about the causes or treatment of disease. Controlled studies have found no difference between the results with test substances and with placebos. Differences from one test to another may be due to suggestibility, distraction, variations in the amount of force or leverage involved, and/or muscle fatigue. If you encounter a practitioner who relies on AK muscle-testing for diagnosis, head for the nearest exit. Meanwhile, it would help if science-based kinesiologists would stop referrring to what they do as "applied kinesiology."

There is a valid science called "kinesiology," which is the study of muscles and their relation to movement and pain relief. Several scientific organizations for such exist. What Hawkins and the chiropractors are doing is call "Applied Kinesiology," which seems analogously related to kinesiology as astrology is to astronomy.

All just FYI and FWIW. Do a google search for "applied kinesiology, double blind study" and you'll find many, many more interesting papers debunking the scientific merit of this approach.

Johnboy,

Let me put my cards out on the table. I feel that my present level of consciousness has led to several posts which may have caused offence to you.

It is only fear of the unknown, and please do not take it personally. I feel the need to clear the air a bit. I am sorry that I have been difficult at times. I love you and appreciate you and your gifts.

I wish I could promise not to let my karma run over my dogma so many times, but I am working on this from day to day and am striving to leave
what no longer serves our common goal behind.

Our common goal, I trust, is the love of God.

Hawkins calibrates theology at 480-485. I have seldom in my life even dared to aim any higher.
Love begins at 500, and only 4% of us ever reach it. I suggest that Hawkins' work may help us all to get there. Let's give it a chance.

Science and technology, the internet, the newspaper and our culture run in the 400s, as do most of the discussions at shalomplace.

I have only met two individuals personally, both of them Trappist monks, who seem to live in the 500s, and count it a great priviledge.

What's in the elusive love realms beyond 499?
I believe you are quite fond of Tony DeMello. I have been reading him during your haitus and believe that he was there. Hawkins says that many who reach 600 choose to leave their body. Could this be what happened to him, or to Miester Eckhart?

Hawkins calibrated John Paul II's position toward the Orthodox church at a very enlightened
590. The Holy Father seems to be a very holy man!
I know that you are also fond of Zen Catholicism,
which also calibrates at 590. Awesome stuff!

He has said that just reading his book will raise a person's calibration 35 points. Do you feel any different since reading it? I do.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

FEAR NOT!

pax, AMOR et bonum,
jb

That which is real cannot be threatened, that which is not real does not exist. Therein lies the peace of God.

I know this statement to be true, therefore I pay no heed to parts of your psyche that may be offended by things I type. If 'you' get offended, that's exactly the part of 'you' you need to transcend in order to experience the Reality of the Living God who has no existence outside of Now.

My attempts to point you beyond mind have failed thus far. Evil only exists in the minds of people, therefore that is the only place Satan (the �accuser� in Hebrew) has the potential to reside. Once you have moved beyond the only tool in your arsenal that can invent concepts like that of evil, you'll see you have always been the light of consciousness, there is no escaping that light, and Really, there is no darkness.

--------------------
"There is no darkness beyond ignorance . . ."
- It's obvious. -

"Note on the Christian Holy Bible (King James Version)

The Old Testament calibrates at 190. However, Genesis is at 660, Psalms is at 650 and Proverbs is 350. If these are excluded, then the remaining books
collectively calibrate at only 125

The New Testament calibrates at 640. However, if Revalations (sic) is removed (it calibrates at only 70) then the New Testament would calibrate at 790.

The current Bible calibrates at 475. To make it authentically "holy" as it's title implies, it would have to exclude all the books of the Old Testament (except Genesis, Psalms and Proverbs) and Revelations. If that were done, then the Bible would be truly "holy" and calibrate at 740.

Importantly, the Lamsa version of the Bible (translated from the Aramaic Pe****a) is more accurate than the King James version (translated from the Greek). It calibrates 20 points higher.
The King James version has serious errors-- i.e., on the cross Jesus is misquoted as saying My God why hast thou forsaken me?" , in the Aramaic translation the quote is "my God for this I was spared". Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek [see introduction, Lamsa Bible, p. xi].

If the Lamsa Bible excluded the Old Testament
(except for Genesis, Psalms and Proverbs) and Revelations it would calibrate at 810. If Revelations were removed from the Lamsa translation of the New Testament, then the Lamsa translation of the New Testament, then the Lamsa New Testament would calibrate at 880.

The Eye of The I, pp. 62-63

Michael, it seems that you continue to view Hawkins' calibrations as significant indicators of the the spiritual relevance of books, other written materials, disciplines like science and even cultures. I don't understand this. Applied Kinesiology does not hold up in double-blind studies, and Hawkins has been called on his use of math and quantum physics to support his theories. Granted, there is an intuitive appeal to some of this, but there also seems a sense in which it can become a substitute for personal judgment. No offense intended; I'm just wondering if my efforts to help discern what's going on here, what's of value, what's not, etc. have been totally in vain.

----

Using a foil called TBuiscuit76, Ashtar wrote: Evil only exists in the minds of people, therefore that is the only place Satan (the �accuser� in Hebrew) has the potential to reside.

Think about what you just wrote, here. You acknowledge the existence of Satan, who is an accuser, but who can only reside in the mind. Hmmm . . if Satan exists, then he is outside the mind, no?. And you seem, here, to be denigrating the role of mind to help us see the truth. Are you writing to minds? Are you a temptor? And why, dear Ashtar, should there be such a thing as ignorance? Where did that come from? Why?
(Note: you can't use your mind to answer these questions. )

If I am to believe Hawkins book, which calibrates at 980 (only 20 points lower than Jesus),
and accept all this as Truth, then I have to cast aside most of my cherished assumtions about the scripture.

It was not that long ago that this kind of thing would get one a nice roasty stake to cook on and today I can see the conservative evangelical scholar turning red and popping a vein in his forehead over this.

Solomon, it is said, was the wisest man who lived up until that time, yet Proverbs calibrates at 350, which is about the level of a Bronco game or a Rolling Stones concert. (I always preferred the Beatles, which calibrate in the 400s)


Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekial and all the minor prophets are only at 125. These men are thought to be advanced mystics. This is problematic for me. One of these men knew that Jesus was coming 485 years in advance.

I can accept the high calibration for the Psalms and see why the Psalter is sung daily in the monasteries. Since Genesis calibrates at 660, and science at only 499, I could then see why the creation/evolution debate remains unresolved. Hawkind believes that neither side of the argument has posession of the complete truth.

Hawkins said that ib Buddha's time the level of human consciousness was only at 100, and 500 years later only calibrated at 150 in Jesus' day.
If that is true, how is it that we cannot explain the pyramids or the stone drawings which can only be seen from high altitudes over Peru?

There are about six levels of biblical interperetation from a literalist say at one and the extreme liberal at six. I am probably around a two on the scale and very conservative, so Hawkins work is difficult fro me to accept.

Does any of this make sense to anyone else?

caritas,

mm <*))))><

Phil,

We cross posted. I do still have problems with the kinesiological method, and this is where the problems are coming from, I think.

Looking at Hawkins' scale, I would guesstimate
Ashtar at around 200, the level of courage.

Not yet ready to pack my bags and move to the mountains to await the arrival of the Commander in the Mother Ship.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><