Is kinesiology a valid tool for finding Truth?

[Joel]

I don't understand kinesiology. It doesn't work when I try it. I don't know why. I don't believe it's bullshit, I don't believe it's not bullshit. I will just remain open to it. I do feel a squirmishness when I think about it. But, when I think about who it comes from I don't feel squirmish anymore.

I prefer this sort of subjective description of experience, and I don't see the point in arguing.

[Anthony]

Hey Guys,


I don't have much to contribute to the discussion here, except that i don't internally resonate with Calibration. It seems like a quantifying method which leads away from the truth. If something feels right, go towards it, if not, move away. Calibrating a bunch of stuff to find where it lies is another way of setting up a value system, based of judgement of things being 'higher' or 'lower'. Even if Kino was a valid tool, it's use is limited and ultimately leads away from the truth, as all things, high or low have inherent truth within them.

Ariel, you've covered a whole bunch of stuff here about indignation and arrogance, and done a great job of it. I've thought a lot about why people get all closed off when you expose them to a new way of thinking. I believe it comes down to laziness & a fear of letting go of internal belief structures. Changing a belief system to incorporate a new perspective takes work, time to contemplate and reform, and the ability to 'give up' ones previous beliefs system and structure.

If one places security and their own self worth in the fact that they NEED to be right to be OK (within themselves), then asking someone to drop their own beliefs is a threat to their existence. Perhaps this comes from inbred belief systems handed down from society & schooling that we must be right, and it's not ok to be wrong. It's kinda silly, no one is WRONG, we just have different perspectives.

I often find myself wondering why people argue, as the result people aim for in an argument is that one person is right and the other is wrong, and thats just really stupid. I mean seriously... stupid!

Often, people argue over semantics - they believe the same things but they structure their perspectives differently. I believe arguments are born out of a miscommunication. One person things the other is telling them they are wrong, so they try to prove themselves right. It becomes a tug of war control drama which goes around in circles because it's the CONTEXT which is being debated, rather then the conclusion.

It takes a smart and very aware person or persons to be able to take a step back and say 'hey... we kinda think the same things, but we see it in different ways.. isn't that awesome!'

Ironically, Internet forums such as this are EXCELLENT examples of this interaction.



A.

Ps to comment on integrity - integrity of what? Ultimately integrity is complete and whole unification. IF we are all one then we must have integrity, from the dirtiest scummiest lowlife to the highest praised saint or mountaintop monk. We all have integrity, and the parts that are not appearing to 'fit' (creating integrity) are just misplaced, in the perspective of the witness. Does a puzzle have integrity when it's not together? Because it must if it is, so is it not if it's in pieces? or just jumbled up?

[Sanders]

Yeah, I was thinking about this a bit more earlier today and a critical point popped into my head.

In theory, skepticism is about not blindly accepting things straight off the bat. You hear there's monsters under your bed, but you want to know for sure whether or not you're safe. Sounds good in theory, right?

What I've noticed tends to happen in practice, however, is that people enjoy this feeling of not being gullible and they wind up going too far by immediately assuming that anyone who has a differing belief system is wrong. Guilty until proven innocent. They want to question EVERYTHING.

So they come in with this really leery attitude, almost judgmental in fact, and their unspoken assumption is this subtle implication that others are stupid for believing what they do. They walk in basically saying "YOU'RE WRONG! PROVE IT!"

They come off pretty standoffish which is a real turn off to others. Who likes to be around people like that? In fact, the person often comes off looking like an asshole.

This energy is rooted in fear, fear of being deceived, threatened, and ultimately killed by false beliefs. Fear of death.

Thus when a person walks in with this air of "I don't believe what you're saying. I know better than to believe you straight up," it comes off really narcissistic and arrogant.

THAT is what we're talking about with respect to skepticism.

Cheers Ariel, you saved me typing it out, that IS what I was talking about!

[Sanders]

Yeah, I was thinking about this a bit more earlier today and a critical point popped into my head.

In theory, skepticism is about not blindly accepting things straight off the bat. You hear there's monsters under your bed, but you want to know for sure whether or not you're safe. Sounds good in theory, right?

What I've noticed tends to happen in practice, however, is that people enjoy this feeling of not being gullible and they wind up going too far by immediately assuming that anyone who has a differing belief system is wrong. Guilty until proven innocent. They want to question EVERYTHING.

So they come in with this really leery attitude, almost judgmental in fact, and their unspoken assumption is this subtle implication that others are stupid for believing what they do. They walk in basically saying "YOU'RE WRONG! PROVE IT!"

They come off pretty standoffish which is a real turn off to others. Who likes to be around people like that? In fact, the person often comes off looking like an asshole.

This energy is rooted in fear, fear of being deceived, threatened, and ultimately killed by false beliefs. Fear of death.

Thus when a person walks in with this air of "I don't believe what you're saying. I know better than to believe you straight up," it comes off really narcissistic and arrogant.

THAT is what we're talking about with respect to skepticism.

I did become a lot more skeptic to people and teachings that have claimed to have found/know the truth.

The limitation with that is that when someone has found the Truth, you won't be able to see it. Imagine if we did that with Jesus/Buddha/Krishna etc!

[Sanders]

Hey Guys,


I don't have much to contribute to the discussion here, except that i don't internally resonate with Calibration. It seems like a quantifying method which leads away from the truth. If something feels right, go towards it, if not, move away. Calibrating a bunch of stuff to find where it lies is another way of setting up a value system, based of judgement of things being 'higher' or 'lower'. Even if Kino was a valid tool, it's use is limited and ultimately leads away from the truth, as all things, high or low have inherent truth within them.

Ariel, you've covered a whole bunch of stuff here about indignation and arrogance, and done a great job of it. I've thought a lot about why people get all closed off when you expose them to a new way of thinking. I believe it comes down to laziness & a fear of letting go of internal belief structures. Changing a belief system to incorporate a new perspective takes work, time to contemplate and reform, and the ability to 'give up' ones previous beliefs system and structure.

If one places security and their own self worth in the fact that they NEED to be right to be OK (within themselves), then asking someone to drop their own beliefs is a threat to their existence. Perhaps this comes from inbred belief systems handed down from society & schooling that we must be right, and it's not ok to be wrong. It's kinda silly, no one is WRONG, we just have different perspectives.

I often find myself wondering why people argue, as the result people aim for in an argument is that one person is right and the other is wrong, and thats just really stupid. I mean seriously... stupid!

Often, people argue over semantics - they believe the same things but they structure their perspectives differently. I believe arguments are born out of a miscommunication. One person things the other is telling them they are wrong, so they try to prove themselves right. It becomes a tug of war control drama which goes around in circles because it's the CONTEXT which is being debated, rather then the conclusion.

It takes a smart and very aware person or persons to be able to take a step back and say 'hey... we kinda think the same things, but we see it in different ways.. isn't that awesome!'

Ironically, Internet forums such as this are EXCELLENT examples of this interaction.



A.

Ps to comment on integrity - integrity of what? Ultimately integrity is complete and whole unification. IF we are all one then we must have integrity, from the dirtiest scummiest lowlife to the highest praised saint or mountaintop monk. We all have integrity, and the parts that are not appearing to 'fit' (creating integrity) are just misplaced, in the perspective of the witness. Does a puzzle have integrity when it's not together? Because it must if it is, so is it not if it's in pieces? or just jumbled up?

Ps to comment on integrity - integrity of what? Ultimately integrity is complete and whole unification. IF we are all one then we must have integrity, from the dirtiest scummiest lowlife to the highest praised saint or mountaintop monk. We all have integrity, and the parts that are not appearing to 'fit' (creating integrity) are just misplaced, in the perspective of the witness. Does a puzzle have integrity when it's not together? Because it must if it is, so is it not if it's in pieces? or just jumbled up?

Integrity in the sense we are talking about is not of whether something is whole or incomplete in terms of a jigsaw puzzle. It is more of a psychological motivation of honesty and truthfulness behind one's actions. So we can compare a terrorist who beheads people, to a baker who kneads dough. Or a man who steals money from his wife for gambling, to Mother Teresa who gave all she had to those on the streets of Calcutta.

Integrity or non-integrity is discerned by the motivation of one's actions, are you doing it purely out of the ego or out of your heart? It also very much depends on the context of the life situation that a person is in, if a person suddenly became very rich and powerful overnight, how would they use this power? Does the person have a conscience? Does the person support or feed off the world? Self-centred or everyone-centred? There are a lot of factors involved that can easily create confusion as to who is who, not to mention how you could see people differently after seeing who is who (demonise them or Compassion). It can be very hard to see past our own worldview, as we project onto others the way we see the world "If I'm kind I'm sure they're kind too", America has tried to bring democracy to third world countries but they don't want it, they just want to kill Americans as "they're all infidels". It's a complex world

It's important to see non-integrity so that we can get past our naivety that we are the same as everyone else in the world (in terms of the way we see the world). In some areas of the world, I've heard that if you show mercy to an enemy at war when they are weak(i.e. you don't kill them when you can), they will kill you for it. So whilst we can say that everyone has a similar view of the world, this is only true of integrous people/teachings/beliefs/religions. Thus saying someone is non-integrous is not a judgment, it is what it is, a spade is a spade. You could say that a terrorist who finds joy in killing jews (think of Radical Islam) is a white fluffy lamb, but he/she is clearly not .

Another question/doubt that may arise is that how can a normal everyday person be non-integrous? How can we compare a non-integrous person who we find in the workplace or some part of our daily lives to a terrorist? Obviously they are on a different level to terrorists, but the intention/motivations behind the actions are still non-integrous even though they are not the same type of non-integrous motivations. I watched a film yesterday that highlighted this really well, it's called "Fargo". The main character is a car salesman manager who decides to kidnap his wife so that he can get the ransom money from his wife's dad because he's short of cash. His non-integrous motivations lead to the death of a cop, two innocent bystanders, his father-in-law, and one of the kidnappers (was fed through a woodchipper machine by the other kidnapper). Whilst the main character is not on the same level as the kidnappers, he is a businessman involved in the kidnapping of his own wife, which he refers to as another "deal".
Collectively, the combined actions of all levels of non-integrous motivations lead to what we call the daily chaos we see in the world. Whereas, the combined actions of all levels of integrous motivations lead to what we see as stability and all that is good in the world.

It's a very very complex subject as it describes all of human life in all of it's expressions. If we look at higher levels of consciousness (more awareness), there's spiritual teachers who say that the world that we see is an illusion but of course the context behind this is an immense amount of Love. Yet some use relativism as an excuse to say that what you do doesn't matter, and the context behind this is not Love, which is an illusion in essence because we are all one ultimately (the whole jigsaw) and all that matters is Love (non-integrous people use relativism to try to demonstrate that non-integrous behaviour is the same as Love). There's a lot to contemplate about

[Sanders]

I did become a lot more skeptic to people and teachings that have claimed to have found/know the truth.

The limitation with that is that when someone has found the Truth, you won't be able to see it. Imagine if we did that with Jesus/Buddha/Krishna etc!

I will be able to see it. I'm not going to write a whole story down, but you know when you're being exposed to truth.

Imagine if we did that with Jesus/Buddha/Krishna ? Well... didn't we ?[/quote]
I'm not saying you personally, I'm saying that generally to become skeptic to those who know the Truth is a great limitation. Though I know now about Jesus/Buddha/Krishna etc (thank God haha ), there are still a majority in the world who are headed in the other direction so to speak. Think about all of the distortions that have been made about IG for example and that's just one guy in a whole list of examples through history of skeptics of teachers.

[Ariel]

In my experience, authentic truth is not something that a "me" finds. The realization is that you ARE that. You are the truth and everything and everyone is that.

"I am the way, the truth, and the light."
-Jesus

(The next part in that statement, "Follow me. Nobody gets to God but through me" or whatever was suggesting that you also become that. The funny part is that we already ARE that, but we haven't realized it yet. You are the way. You are the truth. You are the light. You are that. A common misunderstanding is that we gotta follow Jesus by worshiping him and accepting him as our savior. It's just a misunderstanding of his true message. But I digress...)

When there's a "me" claiming to have gotten the truth, there's an ego trying to make itself seem wise and knowledgeable.

The problem with seeking Truth is that you're looking for what you are and so you can't find it. This is true for Enlightenment, and for Love. You are that so you can't find it outside yourself. Truth is within. You ARE that.

Upon awakening, like the great sages have found, the "me" disappears, along with the illusion of separation, and the truth of Oneness is not something that they "learn" or "theorize" about, but something that they KNOW through and through because they ARE that.

To truly know something, you must be it. This is the point of that cat example. You can read lots of stuff about cats and spend time around cats and know a lot about cats. But to KNOW cat, you must BE a cat. A cat is the central authority on "catness."

To know about something requires only the intellect.
To KNOW something, truly, you must BE it.

What is Love? You ARE that.
What is God? You ARE that.
What is Peace? You ARE that.
What is Truth? You ARE that.

It's like being in a dream and debating what's real. You can debate endlessly, but when you wake up out of the dream in the morning, you find a reality which is much more real than the dream world. No matter what the dreamer at night said was real, it's all still part of the dream. It's only by waking up out of the dream that you can look back and see that all those beliefs, no matter how in alignment with the real world they were, they were all still part of the dream.

Another thing I've found is that people who have truly realized the Truth tend to say that they know nothing, intellectually anyways. This is one such example. It's about going to a place beyond any mental concept or belief system entirely.

[Ariel]

Here's an interesting video to help put calibration in context. It's a video of a guy channeling his Higher Self and talking about the scale of consciousness and the numbers in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZldEs4tbZQ

[RRandolph]

Yeah you guys bring up some great points about calibration, excessive skepticism, and being in integrity.

I don't use calibration very much but I do consider it useful at times.

I think there are a few things to keep in mind when utilizing calibration in your own life:

-Calibration is referring to a map of consciousness (the map is not the territory)
-The essence of something held in mind is being calibrated, not a word or term (one word may point to many different essences).

I believe hawkins said you don't really need calibration, that when you tune into your intuition calibration is unnecessary.

I often wonder about the accuracy of it as well. For instance, I read on some forum that a guy who went to a hawkins lecture said he calibrated gi gong at 195 yet in videos like The Science of Miracles you can see 3 gi gong masters healing cancer in a person in 3 minutes, suggesting an energy field of 540 or higher.

To me, this brings me back to hawkins notion that the ultimate reality is subjective. This perhaps means that when he tunes in to the essence of something he is calibrating, that is a subjective measurement, simply because we may not be able to tune into that exact same essence with 100% reliability.

In our life, we may encounter something with the same name, but it may in actuality be of a different essence than what he calibrated. In this case, one should calibrate themself, so that the essence in question is the one that is calibrated.

I think the error is in seeking truth outside of yourself, of becoming dogmatic or attached (to a position).

Ariel was talking about the balance and I feel very similar. I've found that approaching something with a neutral mind and an inspired heart is the best approach. When we can allow the mind to be neutral, the wisdom of the heart flows forth.

If our mind is more polarized, we will swing from this side to that, and calibrations will cause us stress (because they challenge positions and attachments). A neutral mind can be at peace with any calibration and at the same time, not allow the calibration to overrun one's own subjective truth.

With this covered, I am holding calibration in a more neutral place until I experience more subjectively on the subject.

[Tez]

Ok, I just finished reading Power vs. Force, and am in the process of reading Trancending the levels of Conciousness.

From what I have tried, Kinesiology is completely unreliable. Unfortunately he says that anyone at any stage can do it reliably with a repeatability of 100%. We know this to be false.

I find that he calibrates some of his own passages, particularly the ones that are over 800. To me, I get a huge feeling that he's made this up or warping it in some sense as a tool to make certain passages have more impact.

Also he states that he's had these "higher" experiences and that you can access all kinds of information from them and that during those states he is doing only God's will. But then he goes on to discover kinesiology, and have immense curiosity for it. But isn't that a huge ego construct itself?

From what I've seen he knows a lot, he's got a LOT to say. He does have a PHD in psychology. From what I've seen I would say that maybe he's at level 499 himself. That's just the feeling I get.

Also, isn't his "level of consciousness" deconstructing the world into sensible terms what the brain/mind does? If so then the whole calibration thing is a construct of that. Another way to disseminate the world into logical bits and pieces so that we can "figure it out".

Unfortunately he's based the truth of EVERYTHING on his calibration levels, but we know them to be false. I found that to get past just the beginning of Power vs. Force, I had to logically just assume that calibration works. Without that assumption, it all falls apart.