A couple of thoughts on this thread:
Self-referential proof is not proof, just like self-referential definition is not definition.
Truth, n., see Truth.
So we can't use books on I-M to support the claim of I-M. As much as we want to be illuminated by some greater truth than traditional methods of inquiry -- including science and religion -- provide, the fact remains that we are creatures with a dualistic nature. On one hand rational and empirical, on the other inscrutable. There are phenomena we can explain, and phenomena we can't, and we absolutely love to try to explain the unexplainable, and to say that the explained is explained wrong.
Fred Alan Wolf is a colorful character with some interesting thoughts. Jesus was a spiritual revolutionary who might have performed miracles. The Secret is thought-provoking, and it was produced in such a manner as to evoke a particular response. Same goes for the Bible for that matter.
The point is, the emotional satisfaction that an idea or -- more accurately, the presentation of an idea -- provides is in no way indicative of the degree of truth contained therein. It's not useful to look at I-M as the grand unified theory to connect god and science and all of the unanswered questions about the world. It's also not useful to completely dismiss it.
The problem is this -- science and spiritual+paranormal are still not in agreement about the basic parameters for reliably proving these ideas out, and that's a failing on both sides. Science needs to incorporate the evidence that consciousness affects experimental outcome on the quantum level and on the participatory level into its methodology. Spirituality+paranormal needs to enter the dialog and stop putting itself above scientific proof.
Because the fact cannot be denied: I-M is at best unreliable. There's nobody here who can demonstrate it to work 100% of the time. If the mythology is to be believed, Jesus may be the only one to ever master this in the history of humankind. And that's a big if. But imagine if we could understand the operational parameters on a repeatable level. That would mean something. A handful of successful businessmen and authors clamoring that all their dreams have come true, "Just buy my book," is not very compelling, true or not.
I think there is something to I-M, in part as the beginning of an explanation for how consciousness interacts with reality, and in part as the evolutionary unfolding of the capability of consciousness. But as a principal it is incomplete, explained totally in terms of fuzzy concepts, and self-referential in its justification. It needs some serious work. I think some pretty big things have occurred in my life as a result of I-M. But the burden is on the believers -- not to prove, but to refine the understanding and practice to the point where it is compelling in the degree and consistency of its results, not just in its appeal.
The Hindu sage Ramanuja relentlessly beseeched the teacher Ghoshtipurna to impart the sacred Moksha Mantra of enlightenment. Finally Ghoshtipurna relented on the strict condition that he not divulge it to anyone lest he be consigned to hell. Realizing that this mantra was the most effective path to enlightenment, Ranamuja rang the temple bell and announced it for all to hear. When his teacher berated him for this sacrilegious act, Ramanjua replied that his going to hell was a small sacrifice to bring liberation to so many. His teacher was moved by this selfless compassion and blessed his student and called him guru.
I think it's more valuable to put energy into discovering the Moksha Mantra of I-M before ringing the temple bell.
|