OK to disagree with an IP material?

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.