OK to disagree with an IP material?

So, I went back to look at my IP, and it looks as though I never agreed nor disagreed with the source material. hahah.

In fact... my discussion on The Field had little to do with her book at all. Maybe I 'did' fail. hahahahha.

Fantastic.

I haven't read it and I don't think I will. Try this instead:

I do not deny the field concept... What do I know...
Although I believe Whyte Horse this is dealt with on exercise IV lesson II.

I'll just add that I'm tired of hearing people abusing some fancy studies like 'quantum mechanics' to justify their beliefs in magic while having less than a superficial idea of what they're talking about, pretending to have a deeper than superficial idea about it and hoping that their readers have no idea about it at all.
McTaggart is one of those, and I'm not even wasting my time on ranting about her general anti-science and especially anti-medicine motions.
So, yes, my respect for her 'Field' thing only goes so far because even my superficial understanding of quantum mechanics is good enough to see through the beautiful pile of BS that she falsely labels 'research'.
As for the general possiblity to disagree with a piece of IP material... We're lucky TOTJO isn't one of those churches yet, where open disagreement doesn't always lead to excommunication yet and to be honest, I'd have actually to review and go through the IP material again just to check wether there is one piece I would not be having any objections to at all. That is not to say the pre-made materials are all rubbish, but I bet if looking for faults, one can easily find enough in about all of them. Of course McTaggart's 'work' is still rather big on being objectionable and its a good thing only a talk about it is part of the IP, not the entire book.

Like many people here, I was pretty much 50/50 on The Field. McTaggart set out to speak her truth (her interpretation of the data she collected during her interviews), and I think that's respectable. I don't remember her saying "this is what you have to believe," so I understood the book/audio as her attempt to explain her personal take on science and spirituality, not as a doctrine of ultimate truth.

Enthusiastic, I was, about the book when I first encountered it because of my history with remote viewing (some of the physicists she interviewed were heavily involved in RV research), but even as a remote viewer I found her analysis of the material incomplete and her occasional jumps in logic disappointing.

I mentioned to tzb that it seems like due to the very nature of a personal spiritual path or philosophy like Jediism, at certain times all of us are likely to come off a bit mad to at least a few people. I might see a number of McTaggart's beliefs and ideas as out there, but I've also spoken with people at the Temple who have made it clear that they find my own take on reality somewhat skewed.

For me, it comes down to perspective and what works or doesn't work for each individual (whether or not that person's beliefs are in line with scientific truths), and that's a big reason I appreciated this particular assignment. I liked that it gave me a chance to experience someone else's reality, while offering the opportunity to compare and contrast my personal understanding of spirituality and the Force.

We are guides not Gods, you are allowed to disagree with us so long as you can clearly explain why you disagree with us; integrity and honesty are Jedi virtues...

I think 'The Field' is a load of rubbish to be honest... but it is a perspective and so it is Interesting Rubbish...

I love it when people say that a new theory is a load of rubbish. It kinda reminds me of Galileo. :whistle:

In my opinion, all that is really to be gained from The Field, can be seen in the first chapter. After that everything sort of seemed off.

May the Force be with you,
Rai

At the beginning of the book she states that she is not a scientist. Her examples are just that, examples.

I happen to have, what some might call, a “better than average” understanding of quantum mechanics. As long as I keep in mind that she is theorizing her examples I can look to the core of what she was saying without being distracted.

Over all, I liked the book. A bit make-believe at times, but it had some really interesting ideas and concepts. And given her obvious lack of understanding of higher math (The book is a bit old so it could just be she is operating from the premises of dated material) she is at least creative in her thinking.

Agree with or disagree with… I don’t think either one is the point of the exercise.

Getting you to consider other or alternative ideas… probably.

Asking if you can be open to other trains of thought… probably.

Offering precepts that are outside the norm… sounds pretty good.

You guys realize that Star Wars is a fictional story, right?

lol...

She does say she is not a scientist....

Look at like a story told by a friend who, you believe, mostly... lol...

The point, being that things are interconnected...

Read it for the message that it is trying to convey...

We all agree that the Force, however you define it, exists...

She is merely telling a story... I listened to the auido version, which she reads... and with the inflections, and whatnot, makes for a good listen...

Science wise, ok, it has zero value...:lol:

If I looked up this stuff, and talked to these people, this is how it would sound if I tried to relate what I found out...

I do not understand quantum physics, but I am trying...

So, if I was to tell out what I found, my science would also be lacking...

I haven't gotten to this particular lesson yet, but I've gone through the same feeling with the Campbell videos. There have been parts where I straight up feel like my own personal beliefs are butting heads with the things he says, and the next thing I know, the next thing he says is perfectly fine. I have found it better to take the things that are new, that I agree with, or that I only partially disagree with than to nitpick the small details that I am in clear, obvious disagreement with, and so far that has given me plenty to think about and discuss. I would rather focus on those areas and get something from them than to throw out the entire thing as rubbish because of a few small details. On a personal level, I don't much care for Campbell so far, but on an intellectual level, I have found myself presented with ideas I agree with put into words so much more adequately than I would have been able to do myself, and in the process, I've even learned some things I didn't know before. Put us in a room together to discuss the importance of myth and religion, and I think we would probably be in agreement, but he would certainly be able to give to voice that agreement better than I. But put us in a room together to discuss religion at the point of which things quit being symbolic and start being literal, and we would probably have to be on different planets entirely.

In otherwords, while I may not be on the Field yet, I think it would be safe enough to say that disagreeing with some of what's there may not only be expected, but entirely normal, so long as you walk away from it with more than simply "Well I disagree and that's the end of that."

My understanding is that the field is basically a intro about the interconnectedness of all... Is this not the point? Is this not something the Jedi strive to understand??? My feelings is that the IP is all interconnected and go hand in hand...

In a sense it is, but it attempts to describe the mechanism for this interconnectedness via the zero point field, which I think is a mistake.

If the book simply said "everything's connected", no problem.

tzb wrote: If the book simply said "everything's connected", no problem.

Then you could just read it in the book store and wouldnt have to buy it...

Then how would she make a living?

SOme of us state facts, some, like myself, like to "spin a little yarn for ya'll"...

MAny of my posts are laced with little stories about myself, and comparisons... There is a reason, and it helps some folks to understand...

She is just telling a little tale of adventure...

to each thy own...

as Obi Wan says, "Do what you feel is right."

As long as something constructive came out of the exercise lesson... The lesson did its job...

Its all opinion...

Is the zero point field and The book by Alan Watts not along the same level?

It sorta is... The Book is basically saying (as I understand it) that we have to be more connected with our inner selves and realize we are a part of a bigger whole. The Field, for all intents and purposes, touches on how that connection that we have with all things works (based on her research and personal experiences). The whole reason for her research was that she wanted to understand how things like energy healing and astral travel worked on a scientific level. I would honestly suggest listening to the audio. She speaks in a very conversational tone and it's more like she's telling a story than reciting anything she wrote in a book. Makes it more interesting... at least it did for me.

Llama Su wrote: to each thy own...

as Obi Wan says, "Do what you feel is right."

As long as something constructive came out of the exercise lesson... The lesson did its job...

Its all opinion...

There are lessons everywhere... I agree..

Is the zero point field and The book by Alan Watts not along the same level?

Same level?

One is about the "zero point field" (the field), the other is, sorta, philosophically about, uh, life(?) as the author sees it.. lol....

Or did you mean "same level" as "out there maaannnnn"?

Out there, yeah!!! :laugh:
(opened me up)

What Naya said...

In my words... Along the same lines, Watts gets into the metaphysical connection explanation, while the field deals w more the natural, actual world connection... although to be fair, I only listened to the audio.

"Integrity and honesty are Jedi virtues"
Akkarin, you're my hero, thank you!
It was about time someone said something I had no objections to

For example:

Naya: Its not just another new theory. She just heard some fancy words from physics and abused them to preach an idea that's been around for milennia and hasn't been indicated, let alone evidenced by anythithing during this time ever. Galileo made a discovery and was tortured by people of a mindset not much unlike McTaggart's - such that sought to confirm presupposed 'truths' rather than to discover any.

Arcade (and maybe Wescli and Jestor, in their first lines, respectively): Of course she didn't specifically call it definite truth, and would she not look like a madwoman if she did? Thing is, she still makes some extraordinary claims and twists the words of people she interviewed to back it up. Wether she claims she is correct or not is irrelevant to wether her other claims are correct and the latter is in question. She starts with the conclusion and then seeks for words vague enough by authorities she thinks are good enough to confirm that conclusion. Now of course it is unscientific, but that doesn't only mean its coming short of the scientific method. It also means it has negligible value as does everything that conducts little to no useful messages.

Wescli: Creativity has something to do with creating new stuff. She didn't.
And as for the whole open-mindedness thing: No, having it open for garbage isn't a good thing. Alternative ideas are only good when the established ones are flawed. This is why we don't go ahead and consider replacing chemistry with alchemy again, and why we shouldn't, despite it being an alternative idea.

Jestor: As I mentioned to Wescli, she didn't make a contribution. She had the conclusion before the research and she could probably have written the entire thing skipping all the research altogether, and it would probably be even much closer to fictional Jedi understanding of the Force - more of a ghost thing, less of a complicated-physics-and-midichlorian-words (not mocking you here, but her) kind of thing.
Also, about the Force and our agreement that it exists, I'm afraid you'd have to define the Force and existence for that. Since the word has (to this site) about as many meanings as there are people active on this site, its hard to tell it exists, if the only thing common to all those existing things is, that they are labeled 'the Force' by their respective believer in them. As for me, I think that existence is only relevant when it has an effect on other things. If I can't tell it from non-existence, I might as well call it non-existent and by that standard, a magical power being kind of around but not really doing something measurable or something that couldn't be attributed to something demonstrable every single time, just... doesn't seem to exist as an actual entity. Now it might.. But I can't agree that it does, if there is no indication of it.

Avalon: To compare a mythologist who studies myths and their history and compares them with each other to then make judgements about the human condition based on its influence to our fantasies to someone who misuses science to confirm BS (let alone her anti-vax campaign) really isn't fair. Granted, Campbell may be making grander leaps, too, but at least he understands that this is gonna happen when you study mythical stories. McTaggart on the other hand doesn't conduct studies to find something, she just searches for some words to twist to verify what she already thinks is true. Of course, you haven't been to the McTaggart lesson yet, so please don't feel too criticized. The reason I'm making this response is because there may be other readers who think that one can compare the two and get away with it

If she only stated her presupposition and didn't try to misrepresent actual findings, she wouldn't be under such harsh criticism on that point. However she thinks she has found something when she hasn't. "Everything is interconnected, now let's find out how exactly" is at least a question, but it doesn't start at the beginning, it already has an unsubstantiated conclusion up front. This is not the way people go about useful knowledge. This is the way people go about theology and woo. To give a few examples:
"The stars predict your future, now let's see what that is exactly"
"To follow God's will is our primary purpose, now let's find out what his will is"
"Exorcisms can cure smallpox, now let's find out what the right incantation was again - oops, that one didn't work... NEXT!"

You see how much accumulates if only I'm away for a night or two? :lol:

All I saw was her introducing an idea or concept that could be true. I never heard her say that it was. She was exploring ideas. I don't see anything wrong with that.