Guest guest Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Hi group and all, Thank you, William, for starting this thread. It is the first thread that has motivated me to write in quite awhile. I use the techniques Doc has taught me with success every day and could post on it every day. I generally don’t though. I find that if I don’t feel that others are truly in need of knowing how to do what I did then it would have no purpose that I deem of value. So I don’t post a lot. However, this time my expressed viewpoint as a scientist was discussed and of value for others so I posted. I’ve read the other posts concerning Doc’s question about why people were offended and left and agree with them and would like to go even further… People that feel the need to hang onto a belief that emotionally comforts them and is religious-based have a childlike need to believe in something greater than themselves to perform the role of the parent. That is to say, it absolves them of responsibility and gives them someone else to ask to do the work. Then when it doesn’t happen it isn’t their ‘fault’. Taking this security blanket away from them, be they ‘Christians’ or Wiccans, is unacceptable to them. Whether it is confronting them with the idea that the earth is more than 5,000 years old or showing them that believing real strong (at beta) and a few bucks can get you a good latte you are forcing them to personal responsibility and they aren’t ready for it. Science teaches us that ultimately we are responsible and that what we get out of life is determined by what we put into life. Religion generally teaches us that we get out of life what some benevolent benefactor will give us when we ask. So, whether they are Zoroastrian, Muslim, Christian, Wiccan or druid they will reject the scientific approach because it violates their need to be ‘at effect’. No amount of evidence can change this and I say good luck and good bye to them as they go on their path. Each person needs to grow up as they are ready. I am okay with their leaving as a result. Anyway, that’s my take on emotional/religious based responses to scientific evidence that contradicts the beliefs of others. Walter Hurlbut PhD Physics On Behalf Of William Leigh Friday, March 20, 2009 6:25 PM Myth Busters Thank you. You have dispelled many myths that I have been questioning without any feeling of support or validation. You have also supplied a structure to replace this misunderstanding. I agree with most everything that you said. The parts that I don't agree with are incidental and perhaps prejudice on my part. I will research hypnosis and " consciously building mind bridges " in more detail. I will tackle Dr Tillman's work in time. My reading list has grown quite long. Wm , " docspeed2001 " <docspeed2001 wrote: > > , " William Leigh " <william4x5@> wrote: > > > Theta Healing offers another structure. > > Hi William, > > I don't buy their structure. > > In fact I 'think' when I compare my experiences (with healing, remote viewing & energy work) and my training with much of their structure... > > ...they can do much better. > > When I say 'much better' I am referencing the methodology of how they verify what they say, and how they 'teach' what they believe. > > (The seven planes snipped) > > This is also close to the structure that Jose Silva gave around 1965 with his Silva Mind Control (remember that Mind Control IS HYPNOSIS). > > Jose did study much of Theosophy and the AMORC stuff, along with much new age stuff. > > And, another researcher, George W. Meek, did give similar diagrams in his 1972 book, " From Enigma To Science " on page 86. > > > Vianna's Book give this structure in much more detail. > > Compared to whom? > > I think she is extrapolating from those that went before. That is called 'research', just like Blavasky did 'research' to write her books. > > I also think she is borrowing. > > I did enjoy her book. > > I do suggest people interested in healing get it. > > I also suggest they DO LIKE SHE DID and get some hypnosis training!!! > > > At Maharishi International University, MIU, a structure was >provides showing where the present class or topic fell into the >overall picture. Each diagram always had the Grand Unified Field as >one of its bases and practical applications on the other side. Good >enough teaching aid. > > Well, > > Now we are getting into 'druthers', for example " I'd druther this be true than that be true, etc " . > > I'd 'druther' be 39 again, than my actual age. But it ain't going to happen. > > I personally dislike Transendental Meditation being taught the way it is taught. Sort of pissed me off way back then when I took it (around 1970). > > It is taught for dolphins (another word for Earth Elements) and for the peaceniks. Remember the Viet Nam War was still going on and I was ex-military (Army Security Agency). > > There was NO psychic rapport between them and I. > > Now I do LOVE some of Deepak's works. > > (snipped) > > Again, my problem with Vianna's stuff is NOT Vianna. It is the lack of proper training methods on how-to-consciously build mind bridges between the different aspects of mind. > > Without that being build, only hallucinations are repeatable. > > Hallucinations will NOT heal anyone. > > (NOW this post is getting ON-TOPIC for this discussion group!!!) > > About 10% of the population are 'naturally psychic' (Jose's testing came up with those numbers) SOME OF THE TIME. > > But because of no training, they cannot REPEAT what they accidentally do once in a while. > > This is the trap MOST healers fall into without the proper training. > > You want at least 80% accuracy and NOT 10%. > > And John Grinder also modeled healers (about 1985 and it's on audio), and John noticed their were about 5% of the people that he could not heal even using the modeling process. > > Some people just have a certain 'attitude' that by-passes the healer's processes, and it is a particular personality trait. > > > I was looking through Tillman's websites and I didn't notice any >technology that he was developing, but only that he was looking for >a parallel understanding between the sciences and meta-sciences. > > You are looking in the wrong place. > > I'd get Dr. Tiller's three very complex books. You can find them on amazon. > > And I really do believe that Dr. Tiller 'believes' he is simplying what he's done so us 'non-physic' students can understand, but... > > ...I'd get a dictionary, and someone that actually knows science (physics) on an intimate level to help explain what he has VERIFIED in his experimentation over the past 35 years with dowsing, remote viewing, remote healing and his 'intention' experiments. > > For me, I got my long time friend and student (21 years now) Dr. Walter Hurlbut to assist me. > > And Doc Walter does not agree with everything Dr. Tiller says...but there is enough understanding between their education that I can learn better. > > > ...I think his research shows promise. MIU researches have been > > proving their theories for decades and no one pays them any mind, > > so I hope that Tillman has better success. > > It does. > > He is. > > Why? > > I'm pretty sure one of the reasons is because he DOES NOT come from a religious angle, (notice I did NOT say 'spiritual')... > > John La Tourrette, PhD > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.