Sanders wrote:I don't know about the variance in some of the calibrations, it's probably due to a change in context. E.g. Om by a spiritual teacher with a high LOC is more likely to have a higher calibration than one of a few people at a much lower LOC.
Ariel wrote:Sanders wrote:I don't know about the variance in some of the calibrations, it's probably due to a change in context. E.g. Om by a spiritual teacher with a high LOC is more likely to have a higher calibration than one of a few people at a much lower LOC.
Perhaps, but a jump from below 540 to over 700 is a pretty massive jump. A few points I guess I could understand as a part of some fudge factor, but that much? I would have guessed Hawkins himself did the calibrations in his books and that he wouldn't publish results that are way off. If his LoC is the highest out of anyone in his group, it would be only natural that he do the calibrations. If so, it would be him saying 'Om' when doing the muscle testing for the book's tables.
I find it strange that you can bias the results, when it's supposed to be a very objective test that goes beyond beliefs. For example, it doesn't matter if you believe Jesus was a good or a bad person, he calibrates at 1000.
Given that kinesiology is being presented as a sort of bastion of truth and given that the mind is not a valid source for truth, we do become dependent upon this tool for answers. It is a little more clear-cut than intuition.
It's so easy to write everything off as, "Oh, if you don't agree, you're being skeptical and narcissistic and that's below 200 so you're automatically wrong."
I know you're not doing this Sanders, but I've seen people do it and it seems kinda silly. Actually, it seems pretty narcissistic on their end to be claiming that they're always right, doesn't it?
In any event, rather than trying to figure it all out, it almost seems wiser at this point to let go of trying to know and to rest in the mystery. Afterall, it is by trying to figure things out that we lose the ability to actually know in the first place.
Tuplad wrote:Sanders wrote:If you hold even a little bit of scepticism in mind then you'll go weak so it'll mess up the results, this is because scepticism is narcissism which is below integrity.
Are you for real ?
Could you please explain to me how skepticism is narcissistic ? And while you're at it, could you please explain how it is "below integrity" ?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest