Quote:
Originally Posted by joelr  *snip*
The criticism part of the wikipage is part of many pages and simply said that calibration has not fared well with attempts to test it experimentally. That IS true. Why would he care about that?
*snip* |
The earlier (first 3? 1?) books he wrote under the assumption that any & all could correctly use the calibration techniques (as the 'field tests' were solely with ACIM students, various personal developmently focused people, etc).
Later on, he fould that that that is not the case. The significant requirements (detailed in the back/appendix chapters of every release of last titles) for it to work (repeatedly) are:
- The tester(s) need to be above the level of integrity (200 LoC on the chart);
- The intention of the statement, same;
- 'Permission' to ask/get the question answered;
- The thought/statement held in mind the same way (e.g. Visual image of Lisa as a mother... vs Mental recording of Lisa giving a lecture) with NO bias of a specific outcome (!!!)
Those are the basic ones. Some other erratta (like using a thymus thump to clear self prior if required, etc).
For myself, I often (90%+) have a bias on outcome.
The points above rule out a *lot* of people...
Now...
To address "Why would he care about that?", I need to get into more speculation as to the motives. I imagine it would be along the lines of removing partial/imcomplete truths, as the more exposure/repetition anything is given the more it is typically accepted ('programmed') as 'real truth.' To eliminate it, would be to eliminate that process.
*shrug*