IP discussion area

This thread will be for anyone who has questions about portions of the IP, or all of it, to discuss with others. All are welcome to post. Please respond in a constructive, polite manner. There are no 'dumb' questions, only unasked ones. If more in-depth guidance is needed, feel free to PM someone (usually apprentice or higher).

I'll start: did anyone else have a whole lot of trouble with McTaggart? I just could not get behind some of her assertions from a rational standpoint.

Speaking of Mc Taggart, one of my all time favorite journal reads about that part of the IP goes as follows….
(I hope he doesn't mind me sharing this!)

I found some of the language too complicated to understand and i wish that she has explained her ideas in a simple way so i could fully understand it better than i did. I must admit that because of that, i seemed to get lost when she used unfamiliar words to describe things and i couldn't really follow her train of thought long enough to get the point she was making.

Overall i think that her book is a confusing mesh of different ideas and is not suitable for people who want a simple explanation of the Force, i would say that Joseph Campbell and Alan Watts are more credible sources.

Brutal honesty and mirrors how I felt about reading it!

I still think it’s just absolutely great!!!!!!

:woohoo:

Mctaggart is a quack with no scientific background, who not only claims that a vaccine that doesn't even exist has caused deaths, but makes money by giving false hopes to people with cancer.

ren wrote: Mctaggart is a quack with no scientific background, who not only claims that a vaccine that doesn't even exist has caused deaths, but makes money by giving false hopes to people with cancer.

I actually enjoyed the lecture on the field, the content of which is pretty close to my own beliefs. I would be interested however ren in seeing the sources you claim discredit her work.

The lecture on the field was also one of the easiest for me, again because it was so close to my existing beliefs.

Well, I do like the idea behind it. But some of her words doesn't makes sense at all. She never explains, she just says I did this, I did that, it resulted in this, blah blah blah... She doesn't says why. Experimental science is not trustworthy... You may reach to a conclusion that everything expands when heated, then you come across water, and BOOM! All of your experiences and experiments are worthless.

You should prove what you say... She never says why...

Also, when one have an understanding of what (s)he is talking about, (s)he can explain it in a simple way... she is not able to do that... Which makes it harder to understand...

ren wrote: Mctaggart is a quack with no scientific background, who not only claims that a vaccine that doesn't even exist has caused deaths, but makes money by giving false hopes to people with cancer.

Agreed.

Her book poses as a science book, but I find it in the New Age section of most bookstores.

Kohadre wrote:
I would be interested however ren in seeing the sources you claim discredit her work.

there are a great many. A famous one is Singh, a physicist.

Well in my part of the IP I have not listened to the Audio Version. I asked long time ago if I could read the book and respond on the book instead of the Audio lesson and was told that is ok.

So as far as where I am at in the book I have found everything that she says not only very easy to understand but also it all makes complete sense. The book is very well put together, and goes into great detail about each type of test that was done.

McTaggert at the beginning of the book tells you she is NOT A SCIENTIST, but that she is a REPORTER. Her book is a report on the findings of other scientists. I find the work that McTaggart presented of more use to logic and reality than Campbell and Watts added together times 10, and I am not even a 1/4 the way through the book.

I'm with scott on this, I didn't see it as her presenting her own scientific discoveries, but reporting the findings of others ...I didn't see it as being presented as fact, but observation...observations vary from person to person...3 people watching the same explosion see it differently...

I thought The Field was useful - listening to someone really different from me try and discover, absorb and understand something which to me is interesting.