Michelle Casto's Post

. . . to you, too, Barbara. Warm wishes, Bob

Hi Mary Jane,

It is for the reason that the term "theory" is so ambiguous that I have chosen not to use it. 'Working hypothesis' or 'working assumption' reflect more accurately the evolutionary 'forever learning', hence also tentative. nature of the principles underlying my work. Also, using hypotheses lessens the amount of time and effort (being rather lazy at times) I have to expend disambiguating the word "theory". Thank you for refreshing my memory :-)

Warm regards,

Bob

Ah yes, marketing, that male-oriented machine that keeps the earth spinning...yes, from a practical perspective, it is better to promote the values and gifts of the earth in hopes people will realize that what Jesus said is true, "the kingdom of God is laid upon the earth, but people do not see."

We already live in paradise and yet act like we are at disneyland on crack cocaine. Harsh for me, I realize, but yes, human beings need to be made aware that it doesn't hurt to think, act, and speak like it is heaven on earth, because as you, Bob, and I (and others) have at least agreed upon, thoughts do become things!

Big smile from my corner of heaven, Michelle

Hi Bob,

I like your style...I think. What do you think of the science behind Noetics Living Deeply? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Michelle's poem was religious. It was symbolic. From reading some of your earlier posts you put a lot of emphasis on scientific evidence and theories.

I've developed a process that is predictable and works. It can also be backed up by science. If thought is energy then the laws and principles of energy particles should also apply to thought. I've not found the resources to test this with an fMRI or a formal test laboratory, all I have are the results from people who have used it.

It started with my family, and then friends and now strangers that provide my test environment. My day job keeps me from taking time to convert two Computer Science degrees into an MA in behavorial psychology.

Please go to my blog and try the process for yourself. I've found that the only people who don't get results are people who don't have problems. What are the scientific odds of finding that?

Regards,

Thomas Biesiada
Find the wisdom of SELF--Be your own Guru
Visit http://www.selfprocess.blogspot.com

|
Hi Thomas,

Thank you for your stimulating questions and comments. I've quoted them below and interspersed my responses among them.

TB: "I like your style...I think."
BJ: Thank you, Thomas, for your kind words. One thing I've noticed about my "style" is that it is really a verb rather than noun, i.e. it is a process that keeps evolving as new scientific evidence and insights are gained through participative discussions with my soul consultant OmniMind (OM for short).

TB: "What do you think of the science behind Noetics Living Deeply?"
BJ: While I haven't had time to explore their research methodology in detail, knowing the three fine scientists who conducted the study and authored the book, I feel relatively confident the data is reliable in the context of the sample they studied. However, showing my bias now, I would have preferred a larger sample which would have included a significantly representative group who "live deeply" in their work-a-day lives within major organizations such as Fortune 500s, HMOs, etc. I have a number of colleagues in organization development who had they been interviewed and featured in the book could have enhanced significantly the richness of "living deeply" (also highly and broadly) in the realm of individual and organization transformation. If you would like an illustration of what I am refering to please see my blog "Seven Steps to Integral Organization Transformation" http://www.shiftinaction.com/declare/43/share?from=60)

TB: "Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Michelle's poem was religious. It was symbolic."
BJ: I was responding specifically to the question she posed in the title of her blog: " Kingdom Come---A Poem---You decide: Fact or Fiction?" Whether Michelle's lovely poem was "religious" or "symbolic" is irrelevant to me in that she seemed to be asking us to respond to her operative words: "Kingdom Come . . . Fact or Fiction". This is another example of "thoughts are things" which can be powerful influences on our behavior, for individual, social, and ecosystem health or ill.

My frame-of-reference, which comes from over 50 years in organization development consulting, writing, and college teaching, is that there are basically three kinds of leadership: directive, participative, and non-directive. All three can be useful and healthful, depending on the situation one is in, if not overused or misused. Kingdoms are historically monarchical, masculine-dominated, and autocratic (directive) and therefore unilateral in communications. One-way communications are notoriously poor. (For more discussion you may want to review my blog "Challenges in Integral Noetic Communications" http://www.shiftinaction.com/node/6547)

My efforts since graduating from theological school in 1950, have focused on being my own Cocreative Self-Manager (similar to what you call "becoming one's own Guru'). I have done it through Integral Source Meditation which has brought me into a conscious state of oneness with our Mystery Source of all creative evolution. Based on the way my inner voice (I have come to call OmniMind - OM for short) works with me, OM is usually participative, offering options and entering into discussions with me about their pros and cons without any apparent attempt to persuade or sell. And It-She-He is often non-directive but simply supports my decisions. OM is directive in situations when emergencies arise (for an example see my blog "Dragor Hotel Experience: Spooky Action Up Close?" http://www.shiftinaction.com/node/6688).

So, it is within that frame-of-reference I answered Michelle the way I did, to quote myself, "You've written a beautiful poem however I don't know of any scientific evidence that either supports or refutes your message [of a "kingdom come . . . fact or fiction?"]. If you have any such evidence I will be glad to review it. Yours with empathy and trust in evidence-based integral natural science and our timeless, infinite, transparent, omnipresent, caring Mystery Source of all consciousness."

So, all I was saying, Thomas, is that I don't know of any scientific evidence supporting the view that the ultimate state of consciousness is a "kingdom" which connotes a preeminence of autocratic, masculine, monoarchal values rather than a more liberal general realm of ultimate consciousness which holds anima and animus as equal in importance but complementary opposites, a realm of conscious awareness which assumes a range of options in behavior rather than just the one autocratic model, etc.

I have chosen to use the 'working hypothesis' (not a theory) that the realm of our Mystery Source provides a range of options -- participative, non-directive, directive -- equally available for the choosing to feminine and masculine intelligences, not an autocratically imposed state of conscious SELF as might be dictated by a king who relegates the queen to lower status and power than he. To me, the latter is a poor social model for female and male gender roles and relationships. For more information see my blog titled "Want to Know Your Anima-Animus Profile? http://www.shiftinaction.com/node/5361"

For information on concious integral leadership you may want to check out my blog "A Conscious Integral Leader http://www.shiftinaction.com/node/1963.)

TB: "From reading some of your earlier posts you put a lot of emphasis on scientific evidence and theories."

BJ: Thank you for reading some of my earlier posts. Which ones are they? I haven't been aware that I put a lot of emphasis on theories. I do, however, put a lot of emphasis on 'working hypotheses' but like most scientists I do not consider hypotheses as equal in weight to theories. To us theories come only from hypotheses which have been thoroughly tested for validity and reliability over a meaningful span of time. And even then no scientist worth her or his salt would hold a theory as absolute proof for new evidence could knock the props out from under an honored theory. There are a number of examples of that in the history of science, but that's for another blog sometime.

Just for the record my stated commitment is TO RELY UPON SCIENCE AND REASONING BLENDED WITH INTUITION. Use a blend of scientific methodology, logical deduction, and intuition to provide understanding of healthful, integral Nature, and live my life accordingly. When science and logic fail, remember there are aspects of reality not subject to scientific investigation . . . they can be experienced and known only through my biological senses, intuition, and reality-testing in the laboratory of my everyday life." (See Commitment No. 9 in my blog " My Ten Commitments (alternative to the 10 commandments)" http://www.shiftinaction.com/node/1172

TB: "I've developed a process that is predictable and works. It can also be backed up by science. If thought is energy then the laws and principles of energy particles should also apply to thought. I've not found the resources to test this with an fMRI or a formal test laboratory, all I have are the results from people who have used it.

"It started with my family, and then friends and now strangers that provide my test environment. My day job keeps me from taking time to convert two Computer Science degrees into an MA in behavorial psychology.

"Please go to my blog and try the process for yourself. I've found that the only people who don't get results are people who don't have problems. What are the scientific odds of finding that?"

BJ: You are fortunate to have developed a process that works for you. I am finding that more and more people such as yourself are finding effective ways to "work out their own salvation." In that vein, you may want to check out my recent blog titled "Who will manage the dark house?" http://www.shiftinaction.com/node/7290
to compare for similarities and differences between our two approaches. I will do the same for you. Please note my disclaimer that I am retired, financially sufficient, and therefore am not attempting to sell you on my approach which I call Sourceology (for more info see my blog "My Integral Noetic Allegory About Our Origin and Purpose on Earth" http://www.shiftinaction.com/node/2333

As to your question of evidence and results, I mentioned to Michelle in her inaugural blog titled "Thoughts Are Things" July 11, 2008. Here's what I wrote to her: "Yes, Indeed!!! I've been conscious of that truth for a very long time. You may be already aware that research in psychoneuroimmunology has clearly shown the causal connection between our thoughts and feelings to biochemical secretions affecting the health of our bodies for good or ill.

For example, feelings and thoughts of love cause the secretion of endorphins and other healing and pain-reducing biochemicals in our body tissue. Conversely, feelings and thoughts of fear and hate cause the secretion of cortisol, adrenaline, and other biochemicals which if chronic are damaging to body tissue. Thanks for reinforcing this vital knowledge.

So, Thomas, to specifically answer your question: "Can Evidence Be Results?" Yes, of course, to my way of defining those terms, evidence can be the same as results. But lack of valid and reliable evidence can be results as well.

It's been fun discussing these issues with you.

Yours with empathy and trust in evidence-based integral natural science and our timeless, infinite, transparent, omnipresent, caring Mystery Source of all consciousness,

Bob