Talk:David R. Hawkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David R. Hawkins article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Talk:David R. Hawkins/archive1


Contents

[edit] spiritualteachers.org

An editor keeps removing this link, citing a lack of an "imprint", whatever that is. Lack of an imprint is not a criteria for removing links. -Will Beback 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

An imprint is an information page about who is responsible for the page and/or the information provided. In some countries there is a law to provide such an imprint. I think a serious page should give some information about who and where. But you are right, missing is not a criteria for removal. --Paddel 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: Do sources that have no citation actually meet the criterion as a reliable source? It would seem to me that I could post any crap I liked on a web page and then have it cited... Father Shandor 10:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

this question was raised already a year ago. as it seems non has come up with a written wiki policy on that. i hope there is one. check out Wikipedia:reliable sources. --Grazia11 11:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
One-man websites are not generally allowed as sources. -Will Beback 04:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean this WillBeBack?

Self-published sources as secondary sources
 Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources inhowfar does that concern the pages in the critique section? Nevins and Paterson? --Grazia11 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merges

Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research, Veritas Publishing, and Axial Publishing seem to be notable only in relation to Hawkins, and there is little to say about them. I suggest that the minimal text be merged back here. -Will Beback 02:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree, they are of little importance outside of hawkins work, please merge back Paddel 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine, done. -Will Beback 08:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawkins and the Attributes of God

There was a sentence written in the article, that Hawkins says he has the attributes of God. That is not correct. Here is the original phrase, with has slight diffenent meaning:

  • "Although the mind is stopped, one is at one with all that is known, so there is, in the instant, the experience of those attributes of God described as omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence." -Paddel 20:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The full statement is above under "criticism." To clarify, he certainly does claim to possess the attributes, as the rest of his statement makes perfectly clear:
  • "The power is infinite. The knowingness is also infinite. All things are known...In the presence of omniscience, there is no ignorance, so there is nothing to ask. So if you ask me what question would I like to know, there isn't any, to tell the truth."

Here he is clearly claiming omniscience, and he states that he experiences the other attributes. --66.31.144.141 04:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who's Who

Marquis Who's Who has a very low reputation. It is not a suitable reliable source for disputed facts. See also Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. -Will Beback 01:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rick Ross discussion board - Urban dictionary

@ArtasLife - in fact, i did not explain any of my revisions. wondered what would happen here.
Rick Ross is a discussion forum - in the german wikipedia discussionforums are not per se considered as serious references. in fact they are not allowed officially. it might be different in special cases. I omitted the RR link as it was mentioned 4 times in "references". to repeat this in weblinks is considered an unnessessary bulging in german wp. furthermore, in germany wikipedia would accept only the main link of one source in the link section and not a bunch of them (which is the case with the remaining links). the remaining links - which are also mentioned up to 6-7 times in "references" i did not correct this doubling.
to me "urban dictionary" doesnt seem to be a serious reference at all. whoever rephrases personal names in a DICTIONARY in a derogative sense is OFF THE MARK. who could be of support in clarifying this issue. i am a newby in here and from abroad. hello to all and greetings --Grazia11 18:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that forums are not reliable sources. -Will Beback 21:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this clarification. I removed two other links in line with our discussion. Further, there were two faulty links that I removed as well. I do appreciate how you provided footnotes.--ArtAsLife 01:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia is also not a reliable source. We have no way of knowing whether someone commenting here is who they claim to be. Therefore I'm removing the link to this talk page from the "critical links" section. -Will Beback 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, copying material from this wiki to other wikis does not improve the reliability. -Will Beback 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
wikis are considered pretty reliable sources, i guess. hawkins reply to carroll which is posted on the talk page of wpe can be found with google (i guess). and Hawkins (i.e. "someone's") response has been copied with clear source referral in the beg. of May already. even R. Ross admin enjoy wikis as sources (without referring to them) though. rgds --Grazia11 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The link you added simply copies material from this page. It is not verifiable that the letter came from Hawkins. If it was posted to an official Hawkins website then we could link to it. -Will Beback 23:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
@Will Beback, what makes Andrew P. and Shawn Nevins to reliable sources, both of them running websites with no proper imprint, writing articles not mentioning the author? what's up with Carroll, who writes 1 typo and 1 doubling alone in the headline Dr. Doctor David Hawkins's AK Quakery issued in nl #58?
mind you en:wp does not require TRUTHful statements but VERIFIABLE statements. if internal links are not usus so an external veryfiable link may be of service instead.
if you were hawkins, where would you place your statements on critique, so that it may be estimated as a reliable answer of yours acc to wikistandards (where could i read abt this policy?) - as interpreted by you? rgds --Grazia11 23:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's discuss one thing at a time. How can we verify that the letter actually was written by Hawkins? -Will Beback 23:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Easy. Mail to his office and have it confirmed or dismissed. rgds --Grazia11
OK, once Hawkins emails me that it is true then I can verify it. Or he can post it to one of his websites. Until then the material is unverified and we should not reference it. -Will Beback 05:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
@Will, the VP office answered me within 1-2 days. appreciate you mailing to them. would pls also mention the debacle with the dead prince of denmark - ask them to correct bio-data on the davidhawkins.info. then this is out of the way. - if all questionable sources would get the same attention, oh what an article this might be in the end. rgds --Grazia11 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem is not a Danish Order and I can not give you any information of it.

Prince Valdemar of Denmark was born in 1858 and died in 1939.

Yours Sincerely

Bjarne E. Pedersen Deputy Private Secretary to Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark

[1]--ArtAsLife 16:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawkins AK version never claimed to be conventional science

@ArtasLife - this is a grave misunderstanding. hawkins calls himself jokingly a 'misfit' and all his professional life long he has studied, tried and followed unconventional methods and did call himself "naive" later re Monroes OOB-methods.
Your ranting re AK being no 'real science' is unneccessary. This is in fact so. provable linear science ends at loc 499. muscle testing rates at 600 and applied ak (in the Hawkinian sense) is ratet at 605. right from the beginning Hawkins did not claim to offer 'real science', his approach goes beyond (the conceivable for the intellect).
He though learned while applying it with outside persons/groups, that level 200 for tester/testee is a basis to start with and level 400+ is a stable basis to get reliable results for people who get on with this art (it is like playing the piano it needs practice). the groups of 100 test couples each who had met with Hawkins had only 1-2 who did not come up with the same answer when faced with a blind situation re stuff in within closed envelopes, which had been handed out. those test persons/students in meetings with hawkins rate in general around 380-420 - and his energy field does the rest to achieve fairly consistent group results. at home (all by yourself and being a beginner) this is not so. it takes practice of arnd 1 year to get fluent with it or better - a fluent study group. other than that Hawkins recommends to consult an AK practioner instead. sure enough it needs AK or a loc 540+ to test if testing a certain issue is 'integrous' after all. rgds --Grazia11 03:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

@AaL - Andrew P. and Shawn Nevins (operating with no website imprint and unclear if they themselves are the source of articles) are rating gurus with no explanation on how they arrive at their results. Hawkins actually does rate gurus and teachers as well - with his AK method (widely explained, still not easy). he himself is no 'good' since long as a testee, same with those who have completed ACIM lession 80+. guru rating (headline) is not 'scienctist' rating, even though AP concludes 'fundamentalist pseudoscientist'. (it can be read by those who check the link.) AK (rep in cap letters) was a copy&paste error due to an edit incongruency (too many changes to fill in). sorry. --Grazia11 03:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Your ranting re AK being no 'real science' is unneccessary. This is in fact so. provable linear science ends at loc 499." This gave me a good laugh, I appreciate that. Anyway, it begs the question and assumes Hawkins' unproved and falsified theories as correct without evidence. I didn't realize he considers himself "naive" with regard to Monroe, when his web site still references being involved with the Monroe Institute. It is one thing to be a "misfit" and delve into unconventional practices, but it is another to believe that because you did so you deserve respect. Hawkins refers to his orthomolecular psychiatry as if it is some wonder, when in fact no responsible physician falls for such nonsense. I didn't realize I was "ranting" by the way, when I spoke the truth. I hope you do not interpret factual information as rants.
Everything you wrote needs to go under "spiritual teaching", not science. Besides, I fundamentally disagree. Hawkins clearly states that AK is science in Power Vs. Force, and incorrectly refers to it as a "well-established science" that has universal reproducability; both statements are false.
I am amazed how you accept everything Hawkins teaches with no evidence. Oh, but I guess that whole "evidence" thing would just be ever so low in consciousness. The emperor has no clothes. The system is invisible. And you buy into it so no one else thinks you are at a low level of consciousness. At least many do if not you specifically.
"level 200 for tester/testee is a basis to start with and level 400+..." this is an ad hoc hypothesis. How many times will his "science" be refined to escape refutation?
"his energy field does the rest to achieve fairly consistent group results." What?
"Andrew P. and Shawn Nevins (operating with no website imprint and unclear if they themselves are the source of articles) are rating gurus with no explanation on how they arrive at their results." This is untrue. They wrote articles regarding Hawkins, and rated him. It is clear they are the authors. Why not just send them a mail and verify it? I already have.--ArtAsLife 16:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
hi AAL, tks for yr reply. >>>"Your ranting re AK being no 'real science' is unneccessary. This is in fact so. provable linear science ends at loc 499." This gave me a good laugh, I appreciate that. Anyway, it begs the question and assumes Hawkins' unproved and falsified theories as correct without evidence.<<< fine that you find amusement. What is begging a question? Proving stops where para (for others pseudo) starts. How is Hawkins AK version falsified? Pls name 5 points or so?
>>> I didn't realize he considers himself "naive" with regard to Monroe, when his web site still references being involved with the Monroe Institute.<<< this is part of his bio – he estimates bob monroe highly. And still "All those astral out of body projections didn't seem to increase my level of consciousness much. I was naive.  »Power vs Forces« D. Hawkins speech on tape, 1996 >>>It is one thing to be a "misfit" and delve into unconventional practices, but it is another to believe that because you did so you deserve respect. <<

he is being respected by dr. vogelsang, a german physician on a german specific forum http://www.geistig-frei.com/forum/index.php?topic=5422.msg77253http://www.geistig-frei.com/forum/index.php?topic=5422.msg77253

>>>Hawkins refers to his orthomolecular psychiatry as if it is some wonder, when in fact no responsible physician falls for such nonsense.<<< aha, the one who fall for it are "no responsible"? i guess madame curie was "not responsible" – she surely died of her science (did she get the nobel prize for it?) >>I didn't realize I was "ranting" by the way, when I spoke the truth.<<< - truth is a big subject and Hawkins lifetime "hobby". Wpe is just int. in verification, not in truth. >>I hope you do not interpret factual information as rants.<< what i see as ranting is: to make 1 point at 3 spots (even under headlines where it is displaced).
>>>Everything you wrote needs to go under "spiritual teaching", not science.<<< fine with me, everything is spiritual, science also. You can also turn it round. Everything is science, spirit also. Which does not mean that man does have a handle on everything. >>>Hawkins clearly states that AK is science in Power Vs. Force, and incorrectly refers to it as a "well-established science" that has universal reproducability; both statements are false. <<< you may have your go – and you did write so in the text. Just do it under the critique section of AK – thats what it is for. For Hawkins it is well established and reproducible. And it is not reproducible, when standards are not met. So simple. And AK is not exact to the very point. Certain national studyteams varied 5 points consistently with certain questions. I do not have the source for that, i heard hawkins say so. there are cultural biasses included. Thats why science of truth is a protoscience and – does not belong to hawkins. He has started it.
>>>I am amazed how you accept everything Hawkins teaches with no evidence. Oh, but I guess that whole "evidence" thing would just be ever so low in consciousness.<<< i did not "believe" in evidence seeking (insisting) before i came across Hawkins. This is what hawkins says to that: "It is important to understand that no level is better or worse than another. There are no opposites. The Map of the Levels of Consciousness represents a gradation of consciousness — degrees of the experience of Reality, the existence of God, and the level of lovingness that is present. The 500s (love) are not "better” than the 400s (reason); they simply represent another gradation (and a "higher" level of truth) on an infinitely growing scale." (no explicit source available at the moment) but verifiable if so needed.
>>>"level 200 for tester/testee is a basis to start with and level 400+..." this is an ad hoc hypothesis. How many times will his "science" be refined to escape refutation?<<< go for it, AAL, once and at the place which meant for critique, not all over the place (as was done so far in the hawkins entry.
>>>"his energy field does the rest to achieve fairly consistent group results." What?<<< never heard of the heisenberg principle? See dr. marilyn schlitz from IONS. she reproduced her results in a staring study done twice in US and GB, which her british colleague weismann could not believe, being a scientist and a sceptic in authentic search for truth (not debunking by words). He reproduced his no-results in a repeating row, in GB and US. The observer and his loc (level of consciousness) influences the results.
>>"Andrew P. and Shawn Nevins (operating with no website imprint and unclear if they themselves are the source of articles/entries) are rating gurus with no explanation on how they arrive at their results." This is untrue. They wrote articles regarding Hawkins, and rated him. It is clear they are the authors. Why not just send them a mail and verify it? I already have.<<< waht is Andrew P.'s full name? fine, thks for the research. did you place their emails in wpe talk section - so that otheres may have a chance for verification also? This was done with hawkins reply on the newletter #58 entry of carroll in his respective living person entry in wpe (talk side). And still the one who did so, is not seen as a verification. he might have made it all up. So we need another verification. Pls hand in P.s and Nevins respective emails - so you have their permission - and much better - get them to write a proper imprint on their respective websites with an editor's note how their sites operate. Otherwise it remains questionable. Anybody can type a name. There is no signature under the guru rating pages with both of them. 'Somebody' has rated some gurus according to what? (dislike of them, religion, God?) – rgds --Grazia11 04:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
"What is begging a question?" It is the same as circular reasoning; i.e., one must have integrity for AK to work, how do you know who has integrity?, with AK. This begs the question; there is no outside referent, it refers back to itself. An example is: "The Bible is totally true because the Bible says so."
"Proving stops where para (for others pseudo) starts." This really is a whole subject, isn't it? Still, I believe this also begs the question because you are assuming that Hawkins is correct (i.e., 499 is the end of science, 500 up is "para"...). You know, I would contend that Hawkins is also a skeptic, though just not of his own views. I can't imagine how to convince you otherwise, as it is a belief rather than a fact. Science needs evidence. If there is no evidence, it is not science. This is a fact rather than a presumed ad hominem "low LOC" or something.
"How is Hawkins AK version falsified? Pls name 5 points or so?" Simply look up the NIH/NLM studies that have been done (I will not respond to ICAK studies. If you do not know why, that is fine and I do not need to convince you of anything). Per Hawkins, AK as practiced by chiropractors is the source of his system that he built on. If the foundation is shoddy, so much so the building!
"he is being respected by dr. vogelsang, a german physician on a german specific forum" I am not familiar with this and cannot comment. Dr. Carroll also referenced another psychiatrist who bought into Hawkins' quackery. It does not mean that it is or ever will be accepted by the mainstream and proved. Besides, it is Hawkins burden of proof to show that his extraordinary claims are true. Can you consider the possibility that this is not due to low "LOC", but actually just because that AK does not work is a fact of life?
"aha, the one who fall for it are "no responsible"? i guess madame curie was "not responsible"" I do not follow this. Did Curie buy into OP? Did she take vitamins to avoid death? Too bad. The reference is from "The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy" by Stephen Barrett, M.D. "[Pauling] termed this approach "orthomolecular," meaning "right molecule." After that, he steadily expanded the list of illnesses he believed could be influenced by "orthomolecular" therapy and the number of nutrients suitable for such use. No responsible medical or nutrition scientists share these views." [2]
"truth is a big subject and Hawkins lifetime "hobby"." It has been my lifetime hobby as well.
"Wpe is just int. in verification, not in truth." Of course you can't be serious! Yes, verification is important, but the articles need to be factual!
"what i see as ranting is: to make 1 point at 3 spots (even under headlines where it is displaced)." I was simply responding every time this was done; so perhaps you "ranted" first with the number of times you wrote something that I simply responded to with factual information?
"fine with me, everything is spiritual, science also." Science is not "spiritual". For Hawkins, spirituality is something beyond the physical. Science is purely physical.
"The observer and his loc (level of consciousness) influences the results." This begs the question; you assume Hawkins' statements are true. Heisenberg stated the observer affects the observed (no problem, this is still observable and is therefore science), not the "LOC". "See dr. marilyn schlitz" Not sure what this has to do with Hawkins and AK.
"what is Andrew P.'s full name?" That is the name he publishes under; why is that a problem? Check out Mr. T.
"did you place their emails in wpe talk section - so that otheres may have a chance for verification also?" They are on their web sites, but for convenience: Andrew P. editor@energygrid.com Shawn Nevins sanevins2@yahoo.com Bjarne E. Pedersen Deputy Private Secretary to Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark BEP@kongehuset.dk
"'Somebody' has rated some gurus according to what?" The ratings are based on their articles; read the articles and this question is answered.--ArtAsLife 03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

cont on page 2 dd Oct 30 SEE: Hawkins' AK version - not claiming to be classical science (con'd) --Grazia11 01:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Plagiated' text? (not referenced)

SCANDALOUS. Except ref 22 and my recent changes this is copied 1:1 from a questionable source: Cult Education Forum; "Cults," Sects, and "New Religious Movements" on David R. Hawkins; Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey, page 2 ~ no, Will Beback, either you rewrite this passage in a new - not copied form, or it remains hidden. wikipedia doesn't need to plagiarize. Grazia 11


  • He believes the next step in human evolution is from Homo sapiens to the "awakened man" who marks "the beginning of the emergence of a new, evolutionary branch of mankind called HOMO SPIRITUS." [1]
  • He states that he can clearly recount past lives from that point onwards when he reached a certain consciousness level (600 on his scale). In seminars he sometimes gives small episodes from his past lifetimes, e.g. being a Christian knight during the Crusades and a pirate who stole gold (and he states that he still knows where it is buried today).
  • Hawkins also believes that he had a temptation by Lucifer similar to the accounts of Jesus Christ in which he was offered the power to control worlds, which he rejected. He claims to experience the classical attributes of God: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence [2]; and he has stated, I am all that is Nature, I am that which is life. [3] (see "Quotations" below.) He teaches that he, as God or the Self, existed prior to the beginning of the universe, and will continue to exist after it ends. An archangel is said to have brought about Hawkins' enlightenment. He further claims to have been to the lowest depths of Hell, which lasted for an 'eternity' and resembled the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch and the description of Dante's Inferno.

Please don't mark off large stretches of text as hidden without an explanation. I agree that forums are not relaible sources. However not everything here is sourced from a forum. -Will Beback 07:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

hi Will BB, you can draw all your data from Rick Ross and then go search for other sources to verify it. to copy and paste 2 paragraphs with no changes is frankly impossible.
1) the fact itself is plagiate, even though anonymous nickholders on discussion boards do not have copyrights.
2) to refer to quotes of such a board is against wpe policy. (unreliability)
3) the topics which were plagiated do surely have some substance (and they are written in somewhat tainted language) and in 1 case i could provide a media source. if you want to keep this portion (why is it so important to you / wpe readers?), i suggest you to get it in shape (self made). different items are mentioned therein, they must not be placed en bloc. >rick ross< forum as a reference must be removed from ref-list. still one more left to get rid of/be replaced. 2 others were just wildly and without true basis placed in section quotations. rgds --Grazia11 08:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
(It is "Plagiarism"/"Plagiarized" in English rather than German). This assertion is false. In fact the Ross site was quoting directly from Wikipedia; this article was the Ross site's original source. Further, there is such as thing as legal "fair use" in regard to copyrights (notice how there are many quotations from Hawkins in this article without regard to copyright due to fair use). It is so important to wpe readers as it is what he teaches. Why is it so important to you to delete facts from Wikipedia?--ArtAsLife 15:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Based on the above facts, please add back that which was deleted.--ArtAsLife 16:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
hi art ive checked it. the young rr-froum admin has quoted from wpe (and did not refer to it unfortunately) - thats what i mean with "halfbaked" he could have safed us the trouble we had. and the text which is not deleted. it is held back in 'on hold' brackets <! > can be easily made visible again - and filled with proper refs (how about that?) i can deliver 2 already (lucifer temtation and hell). the rest is yours. and the ummpf (the edgy formulation) which sounds like Rick Ross forum has to go from wpe serious encyclodedia too. rgds --Grazia11 04:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

While forums and such are bad sources, having no sources is even worse. A great number of new edits have been made. What is their basis? What text are we using for Hawkins as a "dung baron", for example? -Will Beback 10:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question, WBB. i could give you the link of a german bio of hawkins, where it says so. anyhow, this is stated by hawkins on BtO webradio, calling it the happiest time of his life. in the intro of PvsF 1995 it speaks of 7 yrs in a small town in arizona as a hermit.
Mind you, the one who has inserted and will insert sources (to balance the overwhelming load of multiplied!! sources, was me - where 1 or 2 could make a decent point - on hot issues derived only from the sekptic movement and hardcore science) where there were none or even false ones. just listen to Hawkins audios (free and commercial) and you'll have plenty of extra sources. no need to refer to the half baked interpretations of R. Ross forum i.e. --Grazia11 10:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you please annotate your edits as you make them? That'll save us a lot of time later on, and prevent good material from being deleted. Thanks, -Will Beback 10:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
i'll check for the dung baron interview. how many links do you expect - 100? we are at 60+ now? ask me in case needed. i am reporting bio data, some of which you can figure if only you go throug the bio link of consciousness.org which has a few flaws only acc to my estimation. you will always run into the truth/verification problem. --Grazia11 10:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Every assertion should have a source available. Imagine that six months from now, while you're away on vacation, someone starts questioning the material. Unsourced material may be removed. What would you want kept? That's what needs to be sourced. If everything is coming from one website, consciousness.org, then it's not such a problem. But if the material is coming from a dozen or more reference sources then it may need more careful footnoting. -Will Beback 10:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I take issue with mention of the "skeptic movement" and "hardcore science" when simple facts and science are being shared. It shows a bias on your part rather than a proper interpretation of the facts. Just because Dr. Carroll is a skeptic, does this mean the NLM and the NIH are skeptics or "hardcore science" for doing, of all things, double-blind studies? I guess that would be a problem for AK, as it shows the pseudoscience to not work. But we need not refer to it as anything other than science and the scientific method, even if your favorite quackery is debunked.--ArtAsLife 15:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"no need to refer to the half baked interpretations of R. Ross forum" By the way, what exactly is "half baked" on the Ross forum?--ArtAsLife 16:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi AsL >>I take issue with mention of the "skeptic movement" and "hardcore science" when simple facts and science are being shared.<<< in the german wp there is an entry on "skeptikerbewegung” http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptikerbewegung which is has come about among others, to show that wikipedia is "sieged” in an undecent way by users who like to label entries "pseudoscientific” whatever does not fit in their respective worldview. (there is not cat in wp:de for 'pseudoscientists _this is viewed as bad taste, i guess.)
Other encyclopedias would not ever consider to classify their entries in such a way as wp in general i guess has chosen to. The skeptic movement started with paul kurtz, founder of 2 skeptic orgs in US. He is also the founder of an atheist org. compared with the statistics of US (7% atheists) and the influence of such skeptic movemens (high percentages of atheists) it is not representative. It is interest-driven of a relatively small group that can infect.
http://www.skeptizismus.de/skepreview.pdf#search=%22Wer%20ist%20der%20Gr%C3%BCnder%20von%20GWUP%201987%22 since end 90ies the number of CSICOP magazine readers (55.000) or so stagnates. however the numbers of religious interest go up.
The rather strong discussions since months/year in german wp is to omit completely the categorization "pseudoscience” //as it causes constant discussions and escalates in unneccessary editwars// or to rename it. The skeptic movement dates back to the end 60ies and started in 1976, there are at least 4 ex maineditors of skeptic orgs magazines who i could name you who did leave and are now involved in informing the world whats going on in the respective skep-orgs, have started their own movements to inform on "pseudoscepticism", "pathological s." or the "sceptic's syndrome". Against the claim the tenor is not science at all, but negative propaganda against the enemy. The keeping is just like it is in a cult. And the cultfigures (like Randi) are being "worshipped”. He is good for an amused laugh.
>>>It shows a bias on your part rather than a proper interpretation of the facts.<<< see above. i just told you about the bias situation on a broader scale. authentic scientists know that there is no set interpretation of truth. and "facts" are not set in stone. the flat earth styed a fact for the pres of the FE society, till he died in arnd 1987. state of the art in science is subject to change.
>>> Just because Dr. Carroll is a skeptic, does this mean the NLM and the NIH are skeptics or "hardcore science" for doing, of all things, double-blind studies?<<< with NLM and NIH i am not familiar so much. I called them "hardcore science”. Dr. larry dossey (an internist who is now an 'eternist' and promotes "miracle” medicine speaks of 3 eras of medicine. energymedine mind/body medicine being the 2nd and miracle medicine he 3rd (this would be rated 500+ in Hawkins moc = map of consciousness). dossey has doctors himself includedpray for their patients, for example. he speaks about prayer study results of 135 studies (mostly on prayed for germs) and all of these poor madesick germs grew better after being prayed for than the not prayed for control group. Guess what: the skeptic orgs did not even loose a word on that. Usually they debunk by word (which is not fact i.e. by another study, words are "verifiable” cause somebody has said and written so).
Regarding NIH i know that they instituted (in the Clinton era) a board for alternative healing methods. One of the ex?members of this board i know in person. Such a board does not exist in the german medicine arena. Its seems to be completely in the grip of "hc science”. However spirit i.e. energy healers are now allowed by the highest court to practice without licence and to pay taxes.
>>I guess that would be a problem for AK, as it shows the pseudoscience to not work. << as you might know socalled "pseudoscience” promotors are usually resistant against bad propaganda and go on anyway with socalled adhoc hypotheses or give up/in or are found to be science after all. And quite some ps are now well respected sciences. Relativity theory of einstein being one of them. Acc to Hawkins and other sources (i.e. R. Sheldrake) there are 1% among the scientists who are not "hardcore” meaning not crazy about "evidence” (who have outgrown them), cause they can flow with a dicethrowing God (one thing that Einstein was doubtful and hesitant about). The 99% are not THE science, they are part of the majority. And what a certain group of science theorists calls pseudoscience is not so for the rest and especially not so for the 1% lateral thinkers, who oftentimes have inspired new sciences to come into being.
Hawkins says re 400-science: >>I respect the intellect. If it weren’t for science, most of us wouldn’t be here.<< Feb 25, 2005 Sedona >>It's no good to look down on science and reason, as relativism tends to do. We have to respect the intellect; we master it, then we can transcend it. On the one hand, the intellect is the barrier; on the other hand, it’s the springboard.<< Aug 14, 2004 Sedona
and some more: >>In the 400s […] God is replaced by science as the font of all knowledge and the hope for the future. … propensity to either/or-ness persists in the 400s as "scientific" vs. "non-scientific". Thus science itself is the home of a mechanistic reductionism and determinism which is held with the prevailing dogma that rivals that of the Church in the Middle Ages.<< The Eye of the I, p. 58
and >>The levels of science and logic, which calibrate in the 400s and dominate our society, view values and motives of those in the 500s with skepticism and go on to deny any reality at all to the levels above 600.<< The Eye of the I, S. 70
The 99% of "hardcore” scientists are doing wonderful mechanic and statistical work under the spell of their own respective attractor field.

>>>But we need not refer to it as anything other than science and the scientific method, even if your favorite quackery is debunked.<<< my favorite whatever is not "debunked", i do not count on verifiable (untruthful nonintegrous) propaganda. What you refer to as THE science is rational empiric science held up by a huge portion of scientists, its the majority keeping up a certain idea complex, not THE science (which itself is not defined per se, same with pseudo science accordingly). There are more than just one RIGHT scientific method. just read the wpe entry on pseudoscience, if you will.

>>>"no need to refer to the half baked interpretations of R. Ross forum" By the way, what exactly is "half baked" on the Ross forum?<<< i did not read all of the RR forum stuff. Halfbaked is tendentious, biassed, halftruth. – greetings --Grazia11 05:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
"in the german wp there is an entry on "skeptikerbewegung"" I am not familiar with this and cannot respond.
"Other encyclopedias would not ever consider to classify their entries in such a way as wp in general" I did a simple search, and this is not true. Here is the entry for "pseudoscience" from the Britannica Student Encyclopedia. "A system that tries to explain physical phenomena that cannot be proven by the scientific method is called a pseudoscience. Despite the fact that they are unproven, pseudosciences remain popular, especially astrology, extrasensory perception (ESP), and graphology. Their validity has been debated by scientists and pseudoscience practitioners for many years..."[3] Note that this also applies to AK. Further, the pseudoscience have references, i.e., double-blind studies were conducted, rather than simply a bias. Studies indicate facts of nature regardless of belief, opinion, position, etc.
"skeptic movement started with paul kurtz" I have nothing but respect for Paul Kurtz. He started CSICOP, but not the skeptic movement per se. "He is also the founder of an atheist org." So what? Because he does not believe in God I should not listen to anything he has to say? The Buddha also did not believe in God (which is why it is odd that Hawkins would complain that Dr. Carroll criticized the Buddha from an "atheistic perspective"!). "compared with the statistics of US (7% atheists) and the influence of such skeptic movemens (high percentages of atheists) it is not representative." So what? Have you ever met an atheist, humanist, secularist? They are some of the best, moral, rational people I've ever met. George Bush takes us to war for God or whatever, while many atheists I've met are pacifists! But of course pacifism for Hawkins calibrates low, while Bush's clearly disproved reasons for pre-emptive war are justified by Hawkins! Again, the Buddha was a pacifist! Besides, America is a particularly religious country. Consider Sweden, however; 46-85% of their population is atheist/agnostic. [4]
"It is interest-driven of a relatively small group that can infect." I take strong issue with your belief that a the skeptic movement "infects". This is based on your cult-induced (references coming soon) Hawkins beliefs. Again, who cares? A relatively small group also began America. Individuals change the entire course of history. I would contend that a "small group" can often do more good for people than the masses (remember Nazi Germany?).
"however the numbers of religious interest go up." What does this have to do with anything? You know, Hawkins loves Socrates, who was put to death for not worshipping the gods.
"The rather strong discussions since months/year in german wp is to omit completely the categorization "pseudoscience”" That's a shame.
"The skeptic movement dates back to the end 60ies" Not sure what you mean by the movement. I would take it back to Xenophanes in Ancient Greece, or at least the logical positivists in the early twentieth century, not to mention the age of enlightenment! Philosophical skepticism of course got its start in Ancient Greece thousands of years ago. But even scientific skepticism goes back before the 1960's!
"The keeping is just like it is in a cult. And the cultfigures (like Randi) are being "worshipped”. He is good for an amused laugh." Well, Hawkins is actually considered a cult leader by cult experts (published references forthcoming). I disagree that Randi is worshipped! And I would like to see what exactly is amusing about him? He is a very factual person, and did a great job debunking the fraud Uri Gellar, among other things. Why not take AK and go win $1 million from him? If AK works, it will under his nose, too. (Unless, oooh, maybe his "energy" is negative or something! The epitome of an ad hoc hypothesis!)
"authentic scientists know that there is no set interpretation of truth." Not true, exactly. Science makes no claim to absolute truth, but science is still as close to "truth" that humans are capable of getting. We send rovers to Mars, put men on the moon, etc., with science, not our wife's outstretched arms. Oh, and guess what? Newton is responsible for us being able to do so! Darn that old "Newtonian paradigm"!
"NLM and NIH i am not familiar so much" National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. Regarding Dossey, I am sure there are reasons for not accepting his ideas. For example, a very large study was recently undertaken that proved that prayer does not work. So, who is correct? I am not interested in debating this particular issue as I believe it is irrelevant.
"And quite some ps are now well respected sciences. Relativity theory of einstein being one of them." In response: "The skeptical fences are there for a reason — to keep the borderlands of science from shading too far into pseudoscience, non-science, and nonsense. For every Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein, there were a thousand cons, cranks, and quacks with their revolutionary theories that turned out to be flummery and flapdoodle." - Dr. Michael Shermer [5]--ArtAsLife 03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference section is scrambled

Anybody here who can and will entangle it? pls. first BtO webradio interview with Hawkins. in the 1st part he shares biographical data, November 8th, 2001, http://www.beyondtheordinary.net/drhawkins.shtml rgds --Grazia11 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There were some incorrect characters in the "ref" tags. -Will Beback 09:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
tks for cleaning it up. --Grazia11 23:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wal-Mart

  • "Wal-Mart is the way to God."
  • is an example of Hawkins' humor infused into his spiritual teachings. Walmart being a way to God is a humorous way to express that simplicity and lack of materiality is a way of being non-attatched to this world. (Webradio interview in Beyond the Ordinary, November 9, 2004 [6])

Whose interpretation is this? If it's our own then it may violate WP:NOR. -Will Beback 09:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I just listened to the interview and there are several problems with this quote and the profferred interpretation. (The material runs from about 35:40 to 40:50 and then 47:00 to 50:50) First, the actual quote is: "That's the fastest way to God, is through Wal-Mart." 47:10 (or, earlier, "The way to heaven is through Wal-Mart. It'll at least get you up to 380." 40:36, ot later "If you can't go to church go to Wal-Mart, it's almost as good." 59:15). Second, the context is totally the opposite of what is suggested here. Instead, Hawkins says that material wealth is universally sought after and worth working for, that Wal-Mart should to be copied and praised ("the gifts of God") for the remarkable job it does of running an excellent business, and that we should be grateful for their inexpensive products. He goes on to condemn critics of the company, saying they all calibrate lower than 200 ("you don't get rich calibrating below 200" 50:10)("They're poor. Why? Because they're poor mentally." 37:50), suggests that the solution for those who criticize it is for them to buy Wal-Mart stock, and denigrates WalMart employees who complain about their wages and treatment. He appears to praise materiality and the acquisition of goods and riches. I've removed the misquote from the article. Let's be more careful with the rest of the article in the future.

(I note further that earlier in the same interview Hawkins answers a question about the consciousness level of pre-modern humanoids. He specifically says that he has calibrated Cro-magnon, Homo florensis and Piltdown man remains and that they all calibrated in the 80s. Please see the link to "Piltdown man" if you wonder why that is a surprising conclusion.) -Will Beback 10:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

hi WBB, PhoenixPotter Junior Member Joined: 29 Dec 2005 at Rick Ross forum Posted: 10-01-2006 09:20 AM "Wal-Mart is the way to God." -David Hawkins --- no straight source given.
this was the unreliable! source of AaL which he did straighten out only halfway - general naming of BtO.
once i had started to put correct referencing brackets in (which went kaputt later) the new user Anelco showed up (handing in his/her 1st post). i did not welcome this new user, as i don't know how that is properly done here (the older users didn't so as well). Anelco's input did not help to restore the broken quotation section - then. i see now that the explanation of Anelco was not properly checked out with the respective source though. i won't comment on your interpretations of the source, WBB, which i view differently. the corrected quote/s may still go on the quotations section. without context it seems rather controversial though.
what i find troubling is: R.Ross writers take source from wikipedia and vice versa (some wp/RR authors might even identical), and both relate on shawn nevin, who does not properly quote as well in his writings, still rating fellow gurus, nevertheless.
such procedure is lowclass wikipedia style. on top, just view this nasty comment on a wikipedia user/style (me, btw) on page 4 of the R.Ross cultwatchers, who is/are closely watching what is going on on the wp hawkins page as well. 10-02-2006 07:58 AM PhoenixPotter, R.R. cult education forum, writes agitatively (deriving this link from wp): >>>Here is a definition of "Hawkinazi" at the Urban Dictionary. Please visit this page and give it a "thumbs up"! Thank you. An example of the word in a sentence, and also a true statement: A link to this discussion forum was deleted at Wikipedia by a Hawkinazi today. source

--Grazia11 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What a tangled web. Let's all be more careful. -Will Beback 17:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
A good place to start being more careful would be to stop including reference to the dubious quotation by Hawkins on this page. It also violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. -Will Beback 01:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesuit University is Marquette University

See Marquette University and Jesuit universities. Marquette U is verified for Hawkins.--ArtAsLife 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC) AsL, pls verify the source of "Marquette university". --Grazia11 20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) The source is Dr. Carroll's newsletter. I have also seen Hawkins' CPU transcripts (which also confirm this fact), which are in the possession of a friend of mine, and he will be putting them online some time soon he says. You may also email Hawkins to verify this. Additionally, his Who's Who articles include this information.--ArtAsLife 18:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Reams

The article stated that Reams taught a class in B.C. However, he teaches at Gonzaga University [7]. Was this an error, or does he also teach at another school in B.C.? It looks like he started something else besides teaching at the university. [8] This can't be taken seriously if it is not related to his teaching at a university. I'll remove it temporarily. Please get this one figured out.--ArtAsLife 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Last year i've corresponded with J. Reams by mail and have rcvd from him (dd Oct 8 and 10th) his essay Consciousness and Identity: Who do we think we are? Jonathan Reams, Gonzaga University. his email address is mentioned in the source i've provided. his article is verifie here: http://www.fourgateways.com/uversity/Reams.htm . Gonzaga University is correct. don't know where it is situated. unfortunately the article is not dated. can you find out with your means when it was issued? Reams engages in integral education and management consulting. and why should his article not be serious? --Grazia11 21:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I quickly looked this up last time. Reams is a prof. at Gonzaga U, which is fine, but it appeared that he did the Hawkins test not at a university, but a sort of business that he started in BC. If this is the case, it can't be taken seriously, as far as it is not actually coming from a university, but from a prof. with a side job. I did not have time to investigate fully, and thus pointed it out. Are you stating certainly that Reams conducted and confirmed Hawkins-AK tests at GU in Washington, not BC? If so, please back this up with a reference. That would make it more interesting. But, prof.s still go out of their fields into nonsense fields. One example that comes to mind is a Harvard psychiatrist who believed aliens came from another dimension (the reason why there is no evidence for them!) to abduct people. He of course was instructed to not mention Harvard in connection with the alien business. So Reams teaches at GU. Please provide info that certainly indicates his AK research was carried out there, not somewhere else. Thanks --ArtAsLife 19:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

to shed light on the questions raised i took up mailing with Reams again. this is his reply dd October 30, 2006 22:13 MEZ (Jonathan@Reams.com), which i have received in less than 24 hours notice time.

I first became aware of Dr. Hawkins' work in the fall of 1996, and had two opportunities to speak with him by phone over the next couple of years. In the winter of '97, I taught a course where I live, in Nelson British Columbia (at a small non-accredited, private university) where I worked on developing my understanding of both Hawkins' work and the use of the methodology. I have attached a paper (Consciousness and Identity) that was presented at two international conferences on consciousness, and also invited for publication in a peer reviewed journal - New Ideas in Psychology in December of 1999. In this paper I outline some of what I learned in teaching this class.
At the same time, I was commuting 300kms south to attend graduate classes at Gonzaga University, in Spokane Washington. In the winter of 1998, I entered the doctoral program at Gonzaga, and started teaching in the Honors program there. (This is outlined in the Education for States paper). I used Power vs. Force as one of the primary texts in that class for the first two years (out of five years total) that I taught it. I introduced students to the methodology, with mixed results for them.
In the next three years of teaching this course, I realized the need to provide students with much more preparatory material before introducing them to Hawkins. I then gave them a few chapters to read, and introduced them to Hawkins' calibration testing method. After a brief introduction of the concept and experience of muscle testing in class, I conducted a test for their benefit. I asked the students to choose a person to calibrate, and then I asked for three volunteers to perform the calibration testing with. (One year they chose George Bush, and even made sure that of the three people I conducted the testing with, one liked him, one disliked him, and the third was indifferent, to test if people's beliefs made an impact on the testing results - they did not).
I then took each volunteer out into the hallway one at a time, while the rest of the class waited inside the classroom. I had them put their arm out, and tested statements such as "George Bush calibrates over 200, ... 300 etc.). I did this for two types of statements. One was for the "state of consciousness" as Hawkins describes it, and as I referred to as the deep seated level or soul's relationship with embodiment (from my published paper). The other was for the "conscious level of awareness," which is an indication of what level the person is consciously acting from. I also performed a third test, which simply questioned the integrity of the individual being calibrated. I also went through the standard statements about it being okay to calibrate this person etc.
Once I had completed the three sets of calibration with each of the three volunteers, back in the classroom I asked each student to tell the class what numerical calibration they had gotten for each test. For each of the three years that I did this method of introducing Hawkins' calibration method, all three students reported calibrations within 10 points (on Hawkins' scale) of each other, and were all consistent in their responses to the question of integrity. Needless to say, the students in the class were impressed by these results, and examined Hawkins' work with somewhat less skepticism than before.
I hope that this description helps to answer some of the concerns raised below. If you wish, I could have the director of the Honors program verify this information, as he was in the class with me at these times.

rgds --Grazia11 19:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Reams perform the tests himself on the volunteers? --ArtAsLife 05:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Reams just mailed to me on 5. November 2006 23:58:05 MEZ
Yes. to above question. rgds --Grazia11 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

“I have not been as interested in following Dr. Hawkins work over the past three years or so, since my experience and view of where he has gone with it and how he is operating do not carry the same quality as before. This may simply be due to the evolution of his presentation to a broader audience, and the more personality oriented following he seems to have developed.” -Dr. Jonathan Reams. --ArtAsLife 20:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Relating to the calibration the students got for Bush, Dr. Reams writes, "They got 280 for his LoC, and 160 for what I called the conscious level of awareness. He also tested as not having integrity. (Surprise surprise)...I heard about Hawkins calibrating him at 460 later on."...
"The whole issue with those was that it revealed that we (Dr. Hawkins and myself) were actually calibrating different things. He was calibrating Bush within the “mantle of the office of the presidency” (don’t quote me as being precise on the wording on that, as I’m relying on memory from my conversation with his wife Susan over three years ago) and got 460, and I and my students had been calibrating Bush as a person/individual, not as president." Dr. Reams. --ArtAsLife 20:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here is Dr. Reams' educational background:

2002 Doctor of Philosophy in Leadership Studies School of Professional Studies, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA. Dissertation: The Consciousness of Transpersonal Leadership

1997 Master of Arts in Organizational Leadership. School of Professional Studies, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA.

1995 Bachelor of General Studies in Human Services. Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA.

--ArtAsLife 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked about what he thought about the current text of Wikipedia regarding him on the Hawkins article, and if he would like to add or change anything, and Dr. Reams responded:
As far as the text goes, I have a few editorial comments, (being an editor myself – integral-review.org) It could read “while teaching the freshman honors colloquium class” to be accurate about that part.
As far as “finding many of Hawkins’s published calibration confirmed” while we did do some of this in that class, I had done many more in the earlier course I taught in Nelson. “by means of group testing” implies that I did the same kind of things Hawkins describes of having everyone pair up and do the testing. We did very little of that. A more accurate phrasing might be something like “. . . 1998, was able to confirm a number of Hawkins’ published calibrations when demonstrating the methodology with students.” How does that sound?
I edited the text per his suggestion. Thanks, --ArtAsLife 23:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Reams further notes:
The class was a colloquium course – it was for the honors students, and they have one each year. The freshman colloquium was what I taught, for five years. I used all of PvsF for the first two, then selected chapters in the last three. Approval of texts is generally not a matter of the school/university, but of the instructor in each course. This is especially true in a case like this, where such a course is not a prerequisite for anything else, not part of any major and so on. This gave more flexibility than might happen if I had needed to fit into a larger set of courses designed to give students a set of knowledge within a given field.
And:
The course name was “the freshman honors colloquium” so there is nothing more to add to that. There is also a sophomore honors colloquium, a junior one and a senior thesis class.
The Canadian is fine enough. I have no interest in a wiki page of my own right now. Maybe some day.
My Ph.D. is in Leadership Studies. As far as being qualified to comment on the validity of such science etc., people will make what they want of my point of view and how they perceive my credentials influencing the value of my point of view. Who is the arbiter of such already arbitrary distinctions such as science, religion etc.? Ultimately we much each decide for ourselves who and what we choose to believe, and then take responsibility for living with our choices. I’m much more interested in learning how to give and receive divine love and compassion than what some notion of objective truth might be.--ArtAsLife 23:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hell, etc.

I added back the Hell and other references. Please add the citations that you stated you know of. If anything seems to not be cited, really it should be easy enough to find. Grazia11 should be able to find vitually any reference with his apparent extensive personal knowledge of Hawkins' teachings.--ArtAsLife 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

AaL, keep your language straight and provide the links to your claims on Hawkins requested yourself. your sources apparently have not come up doing the job. i have a few others to verify still. and this is time consuming. --Grazia11 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, Grazia, this is some basic stuff. Above you stated you knew of the references. You know a lot about Hawkins; to not recognize these as part of his teachings is just silly. I have heard these things repeatedly. You have put much time into this article. I do not have enough time to look everything up. I assumed you would know the references, as you stated, for at least a couple of the claims. Please try to keep more of a balance when you reference things in the article. Thanks, --ArtAsLife 18:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knighthood

I assumed the knighthood reference was removed due to a link to the Ross site. However, this was confirmed by an assistant to the Queen of Denmark (his email and email address to confirm are above). I believe this should be noted after confirmation. However, even without his reference, it is a simple fact that Waldemar died in 1939 [9]. If Hawkins wrote the wrong name, maybe Grazia or someone should email him. But clearly if the prince is dead he could not have knighted him. Right?--ArtAsLife 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WBB has taken out the knighthood piece. I guess he is taking care of it, however didn't mention so yet. This is the official quote an Hawins bio "Became a knight of the Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem, which was founded in 1077. This ceremony was officiated by Prince Waldemar of Denmark at the San Anselmo Theological Seminary in 1995." http://davidhawkins.info/welcome.htm - to put this entry on hold until it is clarified would be of help instead of speculating. on this talk site some other German guy was named instead of Waldemar. if you want to keep it up in your terms, check it out yourself and verify. --Grazia11 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I removed the knighthood material. Earlier this year we commented-out the knighthood and the Korean spiritual teacher material because we couldn't pin down the info. It appears that either the knighthood is not legitimate, or that the description of it by Hawkins is substantially wrong. -Will Beback 09:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Per earlier dialogue, the San Anselmo Theological Seminary does not exist. Please correct in article. There is a San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo, CA. Worth noting also is that the event was not sponsored by SFTS; the facilities were rented out. Will Beback has earlier pointed out that the Order referenced by Hawkins appears to be a "mimic order"; that is, not a real order. And it apparently was not founded in 1077. Additionally, it is not of Danish origin, per the deputy secretary to the queen of Denmark. All of this is verifiable. I have already confirmed personally with SFTS, and the Danish Royal House. Anyone else could do the same.--ArtAsLife 18:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I just took a glance at Hawkins' site, and noticed that his knighthood information has been updated. It now reads: Knighted by the Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem by authority of the Priory of King Waldemar the Great. The Order was established in 1070 and arrived in Denmark around 1164. The ceremony was conducted by H. H. Prince Waldemar of Schaumburg-Lippe at the San Anselmo Theological Seminary (California) on October 7, 2000. He was elected to the Order in October 1996 and was sponsored by Fernando Flores, then an ambassador to the United Nations. The Danish Order then established a branch in the Americas, which supports humanitarian projects in third-world countries. Great, more research to do, with a substantially altered claim. Looks like shining light on his claims is causing a difference.--ArtAsLife 18:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Good news; looks like the guy Hawkins is claiming knighted him this time is actually living. One problem, it looks like he's from Germany, not Denmark [10]. Also, the order is not Danish, as confirmed by the dep sec to the queen of Denmark; so this claim is still false. Waldemar the Great was the king of Denmark from 1157–1182[11]. Plus Hawkins is still calling SFTS "SATS" incorrectly. (Also note the Fernando Flores connection to Werner Erhard.) Much more research to do on this one...--ArtAsLife 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is what Will Beback brought up before, with even more evidence: Self-styled Orders which illegitimately claim to be an offspring of the genuine Order of St. John / Order of Malta...The "False Orders Committee"...[Secretariat: Johanniterstraße 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany, phone +49 228 53011-13, fax +49 228 234571] has issued this list of the most important of the unrecognised "Orders" of St. John of Jerusalem...The Sovereign Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem of Denmark [12]. One of the best claims made on this discussion page was by Will Beback, that this knighthood appears to be the chivalric equivalent of CPU. Even more information appears to bear this out. --ArtAsLife 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Hawkins' changed claim, I contacted Bjarne E. Pedersen, the Deputy Private Secretary to Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark, again; all he said was, "The Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem is not a Danish Order and I cannot give you any information of it. Therefore I cannot comment on the claim." So, it is clear. It is not a Danish order. Also, I didn't notice this before. Hawkins changed his site so it no longer reads knighted by the Danish crown. Truth prevails. --ArtAsLife 16:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
SFTS states in email with me that it was in 1995, definitely not 2000.--ArtAsLife 18:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for following up with this. -Will Beback 19:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem, Will Beback. I just wish I had had time to do so much earlier. I am grateful that you brought this up in the first place, or else I do not know that it would have ever come to light! Check out what SFTS most recenlty wrote to me: It was NOT in 2000...[Hawkins] was here only with the event that rented the facilities. There was no affiliation with SFTS at all. Just because he was here did not mean the SFTS endorsed him or the event...Mr. Hawkins does not even get our name right as it is San Francisco Theological Seminary and he is calling it San Anselmo Theological Seminary...I emailed the web person for the [Hawkins] website as to the dates of the event ['95, not 2000] and also the misnaming of the seminary. I hope they change it on the website. I told him that even though the event happened here it was in no way affiliated with SFTS. Regards, --ArtAsLife 19:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ms Jin-Hee Moon has been Hawkins promoter in Korea and has apparently referred him to gvmt officials as an advisor. he mentions occasionally that k-testing tomatoes while shopping is commonplace in Korea.

this is a quote of Hawkins on his guru-phase in far east:

In the low 700s the temptation is to drop out an be a guru. […] For a while that was true [for me]. I was something like a guru. […] Back East I was something like a guru for a while. Many people came from far and wide. source: Advanced States of Consciousness (interview on DVD), Min 139, 1 of 2, 2002

regarding 1995 or 2000 knighting. it was 1995 acc to http://consciousnessproject.org/page.asp?PageID=23

1995/age 68:
Officiated by the Crown Prince Valdemar of //Denmark = Schaumburg-Lippe from Germany// at the San //Anselmo = Francisco// Theological Seminary, Dr. Hawkins became a knight of the Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem (founded in 1077) in recognition of his contributions to humanity. endofquote extended with //...//
note: this info can be found on page 1 of the archived talk page provided by the silenced user Austin Knight 'attacked' since his start by an admin named Willmcw (who was notified to another new IP user for official misconduct namely 'notorious wikistalking') who has stopped writing in this lemma obviously or else he will be back on day.

regarding Hawkins title honoring in Korea see http://consciousnessproject.org/page.asp?PageID=23 also:

1999/D. Hawkins age 72:
Invited by Dr. Jin-Hee Moon //address dd 1988 here: http://www.mumunsa.org/english/building.html - it is Mumunza Zen Center is one of the Zen organizations teaching the Korean Buddhism of Jogye order//, former assistant //secretary ??// to the Dali Lama, to speak in Korea and meet with government officials and many spiritual groups, including the Advanced Yoga Research Center in Seoul. // http://www.tibet.org/Resources/TSG/Groups/moonyoga.html it’s named Yoga Research Center and it is situated in Seoul – (‘advanced’ is not included in the name) administrator is Ms. Jin-Hee Moon. // endofquote extended with //...//

well now, whoever has doubts may contact Ms Moon easily and find out about the background of Hawkins' title "Tae Ryoung Sun Kak Tosa” (translated as "Great Soul, Foremost Leading Teacher/Scholar of the Way to Enlightenment”) and how many are comprised in "Far East". rgds --Grazia11 23:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've sent a letter to Dr. Moon. I will let you know when I receive a response. --ArtAsLife 16:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hawkins has removed reference to SFTS thanks to them emailing him. [13] --ArtAsLife 01:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Aal, the part -knighthood- in the main article as rewritten by you is off.
Hawkins originally claimed to have been "knighted by the Danish crown" (a statement which has since been removed from his web site) in a 1995 ceremony officiated by Prince Waldemar of Denmark; however, the prince died in 1939.[55] Hawkins now claims to have been knighted in a 2000 ceremony officiated by Prince Waldemar of Schaumburg-Lippe, who is from Germany[56], rather than Denmark. This claimed ceremony was officiated at facilites rented out at the San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo, California. [56] Claimed by Hawkins to be a "Danish Order", the Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem has been confirmed by Bjarne E. Pedersen, the current Deputy Private Secretary to Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark, to not be a Danish order. In fact, it is a false order which is self-styled to illegitimately claim to be an offspring of the genuine Order of St. John.[57]
re: ref. 57 - its nonreliable and possibly reason for libel. The "False Orders Committee / Ausschuß 'Falsche Orden' - does not exist any more due to legal mishaps of such a title and this address in Bonn as well. phone no. is non existent. found this as the successor org.:

http://www.johanniter.de/org/orden/ueber/kooperationen/foc/deindex.htm existing since 2000.

regarding the pseudo maltese orders i have received a return call from the person in charge today. waiting for written confirmation.

the new name is "Ausschuss für die St.Johannes-Orden", its location is in Berlin Germany now, the phone number is +49 30/230 99 70 (252) (edited --Grazia11 10:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)}

the rehashing of what changes and changes of changes had happened on Hawkins' website re the knighting is improper. selfreferencing of data on the discussion page is not wiki policy. and you can just presume that the changes are related to the discussion in here. as long as you are not able to provide a so called reliable reference, it is wobble - and unneccessary ballast.
stick to what is now and officially referenced. and things keep changing possibly due to politics done by this page. rgds --Grazia11 22:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawkins on his Ph.D.

The only reference I know of for Hawkins responding to his Ph.D. is Dr. Carroll's newsletter (by the way, his content is valid, even if he made a typo). Please reference the newsletter to keep up the claim, "Questioned about it, he refers to the fact he had earned his academic title prior to the beginning of the closure procedures of CPU." or provide the exact date and quotation from BtO. Regards, --ArtAsLife 05:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

AaL, the last piece is one of my time consuming projects. working on it. --Grazia11 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Any revelations as of yet? --ArtAsLife 18:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

revelations?!: just check right at the attackers side. as 'truth' hides right in the obvious.
About his study (Ph.D.) at Columbia Pacific University, Todd Carroll writes in newsletter 58

http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter58.html#3 what he'd find out:

"Pat" in the Veritas office replied: "We did not know it was unaccredited. At the time that Dr Hawkins got his PhD it was a credited [sic] university. This was in 1995."
and Hawkins wrote to the unnamed complaintiff forwarded to Carroll (btw, how can anybody be sure that it was Hawkins who replied? - correlate to the situation in here, the Hawkins response on nl #58 could be issued by 'somebody'?) :
Degrees were legitimate and legal until 1997 when the court ordered closure over legalities which the university denied. Students after 1997 were entitled to refund (according to information on the Internet 4/28/05). The degree I have was issued in 1995. In a 2001 letter the alumni association merely states that the university had legal problems with no word since.
That the university collapsed some years later is their problem to handle. I was satisfied, and I only wanted it for statistical accuracy of the data that was published in 1996 by UMI Dissertation Abstracts (Bell and Howell Co., Ann Arbor) as 'Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis and Calibration of the Levels of Human Consciousness'. The 1st editions of Power vs Force did not even list a Ph.D. degree, but I was advised by the editor to add it as it was of interest to the public. The integrity of Power vs Force plus subsequent books and lectures is a matter of public record and has been authenticated world wide by numerous study groups as it is in 12 other languages. To help contextualize the situation, I can addend qualifications which are of greater importance than a mere degree if you will email me a fax number. An M.D. was quite sufficient for 50 years.
This is what D. Hawkins said in an interview dd 2002 on DVD:
There was like the call to come back into the world. […] I meant to remaster the world now again. […] I had to learn everything about the world. […] I actually restudied and passed my board examinations in psychiatry in the state of Arizona. I got another doctorate and reestablished a very large successful practice. […] It was like I had to prove that I could remaster the world also. One has no will of its own. […] To refunction in the world I had to will ordinaryness. I am just an ordinary doctor, an ordinary teacher. source: Advanced States of Consciousness (interview on DVD), Min 140, 1 of 2, 2002
rgds --Grazia11 23:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The main criticism I believe is to reference back to Wikipedia.
if that's so WBB would not have to make case of the unverified authorship of this letter dd sep 2005 referring to Hawkins office. any other letters/mails which we have placed in here could be mere inventions to make a point. this ruling in wiki just means that anyone at stake here is 'forced' to reply on a public website to a google visible talk page, in order to be found verifiable. G11
Hawkins got his degree on September 30, 1995; CPU was ordered closed in December 1995, a few months later, after a period of review and response that began in 1994. Due to appealing the ruling, CPU was finally ordered to close in 1997. However, it continued to operate illegally for a couple more years. Newspaper articles assert that the school was a diploma mill with virtually no academic standards that the state had been trying to close for years. Regarding Hawkins being satisfied, the judge commented that this had no effect on the quality of the school.
Hawkins got his degree, while CPU was still running officially. all the rest is hitting the pack instead of the donkey. acc. to Hawkins his additional titles are for the world, the questionable titles also. he himself doesn't need any of them, having relearned to an ordinary man (doctor) again, who deems himself more of a sharer than a teacher. G11
The first edition of Power vs. Force did not include reference to a Ph.D. because it was published in June 1995; Hawkins did not have the degree until September 1995, a few months after the first publication.
no big deal. the publisher (whoever that was) as it is his own publishing company (where Power vs. Force came out first) insisted on printing the 2nd title. due to W. Dyer's insisting he agreed to have it republished with Hay House starting 2002. G11
We have already confirmed that he is a psychiatrist. --ArtAsLife 06:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

apparently one has to keep up - and not drop out for about 10-12 years. so he had to restudy and pass exams. and he does not mention where he restudied. imagine that. it does not seem all too important to him. regards --Grazia11

[edit] Valid Sources (i.e. SpiritualWiki)

the German site http://de.spiritualwiki.org/Wiki/Hauptseite hosts a portal (database) to extensively delineate the work of David Hawkins http://de.spiritualwiki.org/Hawkins/Portal - in fact, it states on its startpage that the big sister/brother Wikipedia is neither favorable for spiritual matters nor a proper place to represent Hawkins teachings as a mystic. it is neither a blog site nor a discussion board - and it is mentioned on the German entry of Hawkins in the section Weblinks http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Hawkins plus Hawkins/someone's reply is mentioned in the critical weblink section - since months. the spiritualwiki Hawkins portal is well comparable with the older information resource on Hawkins www.consciousnessproject.org (containing more material, i guess) - I strongly object to WBB's continued disrepectful acts of removing SpiritualWiki refs (first asking for citations and once rcvd rejecting them as provided by an 'unreliable source'). Sources of deliberate atheists and cultwatchers who do not event meet proper imprint requirements, nor are apt to properly quote their respective "statements", i personally view as tainted (you could also say as 'unreliable'). Still they are verifiable sources (thats what Wikipedia claims) and they are nevertheless included in an article on a living person, who (in my view is the one who) objects formally to the inclusion of a blog-site reference from an avowed atheist who scorns all religion or spirituality. (re Rob Carroll)

These paragraphs (which i accept to put on hold) will be reinserted - once the answer form Veritas Publishing on Hawkins/somebody response to NL # 58 has been received and made avaiable.

"My books and the lectures I have given worldwide for decades are not about [applied] kinesiology (I have written no books about that subject), but instead, they are about consciousness and the road to Enlightenment, of which I am an acknowledged teacher."[ D. Hawkins on skepticism, provided by de.SpiritualWiki.org ]
D. Hawkins (or else a yet inidentified person) does not approve of atheists as qualified critics of any spiritual or religious literature by any author. Regarding the insertion in Wikipedia of the article Dr. Doctor David Hawkins's AK Quakery provided in The Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter 58 by Robert T. Carroll[4] he responded the following with I […] formally object to the inclusion of a blog-site reference from an avowed atheist who scorns all religion or spirituality.

[5]

Insert Oct 15 - WBB has removed the flwg 2 refs on spiritualwiki.de dd Oct 14
[6]
[7]

--Grazia11 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

How in the world can a "living person" object and correct entries on him/her in Wikipedia, if formal letters are being excluded as "invalid sources" and anti-spiritual critics of questionable background are freely seen as 'reliable sources'? And how in the world can Wikipedia be estimated a reliable source if any other Wikis are dismissed as non reliable sources? --Grazia11 16:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See below. If material has other sources then we can use it. But SpiritualWiki is not a relaible source and we must remove references to it. -Will Beback 16:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC
See below. I don't agree with your interpretation, based on your misinterpreting. German wikipedia inserts engl. sources an a broad scale. it does not seem to be the case over here so much. if sources are requested, then take what you get, even if it is partially in German. --Grazia11 16:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
apropos, blogsites aka wikis being referenced by respectable publishers. http://www.sheema.de/verlag/auge.htm Sheema Medien, Hawkins' German publisher, recommends the Spiritualwiki/portal on its website. spiritualwiki entries are linked about 10 times in the German wikipedia. which is copied by other netsources like this:
http://www.elektro.de/lexikon.php?article=Intuition re lemma intuition
given this reference you may see that the blogsite 'integral blog' is

included in the weblinks section, as well as philolex.de, a private website on philosophical themes, done in encyclopedia style. (a tertiary, secondary source?)

Hawkins commenting on blogsites and internet content: 50% is nonintegrous. that matches about the figures of industrial states like USA and Germany. around 50% of population are integrous (his wording). --Grazia11 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Unlike some other wikis, En.Wikipedia does not rely on LoC tests. Rather we rely on WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. -Will Beback 23:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawkins vs. Carroll - Context vs. content

Grazia, did you read the newsletter by Dr. Carroll? He is not critical of spirituality in the newsletter, if memory serves, but he rationally and reasonably criticizes CPU, and AK. He is well within his field, i.e., philosophy, the philosophy of science, and scientific skepticism. Carroll does not criticize Hawkins for his spirituality, per se, but appropriatly criticizes CPU and AK. Hawkins' reference to Carroll as "an avowed atheist who scorns all religion or spirituality" is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with what Carroll wrote about (CPU, AK), but is simply an ad hominem attack to divert attention from the real issues which Dr. Carroll appropriately brought up. "My books and the lectures I have given worldwide for decades are not about [applied] kinesiology (I have written no books about that subject), but instead, they are about consciousness and the road to Enlightenment, of which I am an acknowledged teacher." This is absurd. His books and lectures are loaded with AK. Even in his (supposed) response to Carroll on this page, there are several calibrations. It is like saying, "I have never written or lectured about astrology. So do not read from a skeptic who is an Aries because his negative energy will mess with the alignment of Jupiter," or some nonsense. Also worth considering, Hawkins' quackery has only gone on for "decades," whereas astrology went on for millenia. Time does not make truth. Grazia, I would also consider that perhaps spirituality and pseudoscience are separate issues. He may well be a great spiritual teacher. But this would not make AK true. Regards, --ArtAsLife 19:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

@Aal - Grazia, did you read the newsletter by Dr. Carroll? the nl #58 ? yes, sir.

He is not critical of spirituality in the newsletter

read this: http://www.whoswho-online.com/search.cgi?t=a_a=Carroll%0182409752013068
it confirms for Carroll: Faith: atheist - passion: scepticism

see also an even stronger claim in: Skeptic's Dictionary

Carroll does not criticize Hawkins for his spirituality, per se

no need for that. awoved atheists of any kind (including himself in an earlier stage of his life) are - according to Hawkins - not in a position to critisize his (any spiritual) work adequately.

Hawkins' reference to Carroll as "an avowed atheist who scorns all religion or spirituality" is irrelevant.

for whom? wiki is to take into consideration what the 'living person' whose bios are in here comes up with.

This ... is simply an ad hominem attack to divert attention from the real issues

this is the real issue. the response takes context much more into consideration that content. besides, atheism and spiritualty are worlds (paradigms) apart. -- to bring up the 'argument' of ad hominem attacks out of the blue seems to me to be a means to divert on this talk page.
i could name you one of Carroll's AH addressed to all 'hopeless cases' who he is unable to convert to his view.

"My books and the lectures I have given worldwide for decades are not about [applied] kinesiology (I have written no books about that subject), but instead, they are about consciousness and the road to Enlightenment, of which I am an acknowledged teacher." This is absurd. His books and lectures are loaded with AK.

that is your take. his is that he is not a teacher of AK, but a user, who had taken it one step further. his focus is on spiritual teachings, his explanations on the tool AK is in fact meagre. see comments on page 1 archive.

Hawkins' quackery has only gone on for "decades,"

his first book came out in 1995. do the maths. and keep your language straight, given your repeated promises.

Grazia, I would also consider that perhaps spirituality and pseudoscience are separate issues.

i can quote you right on this page, where you said it the other way round. smile. a break in consistency.

He may well be a great spiritual teacher.

to jugde this is not up to wiki authors, but to their chosen references.

But this would not make AK true.

and wiki has stated that truth finding is none of its business. regards --Grazia11 01:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "anti-spiritual critics of questionable background [who] are freely seen as 'reliable sources'" - what exactly is the "questionable background" being considered here? --ArtAsLife 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

this has been answered otherplace already. --Grazia11 01:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I know that Dr. Carroll is an atheist. This has nothing to do with CPU and AK.
I wrote, "Hawkins' quackery has only gone on for 'decades'", and you responded, "his first book came out in 1995. do the maths..." However, I was quoting Hawkins: "My books and the lectures I have given worldwide for decades are not about kinesiology..." Maybe he should "do the maths".
I wrote, "Grazia, I would also consider that perhaps spirituality and pseudoscience are separate issues." You responded, "i can quote you right on this page, where you said it the other way round. smile. a break in consistency." I believe you misinterpreted me.
How about you stop criticizing people's background and so on, and just stick to verifying information. --ArtAsLife 06:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "anti-spiritual critics of questionable background [who] are freely seen as 'reliable sources'" - what exactly is the "questionable background" being considered here? --ArtAsLife 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

this has been answered otherplace already. --Grazia11 01:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

@Aal - I know that Dr. Carroll is an atheist. This has nothing to do with CPU and AK.

first you did defy the fact that Carroll is an atheist, now you confirm it. btw acc. Hawkins integrous atheists are preferrable to nonintegrous religionists. and in fact, i enjoy discussions with agnostics far more than dealing with a fundamentalist.
Hawkins checked his critizer for his credibility as well as wiki for deeming him a 'reliable source'. and the question: does X re-spect or de-spect God is of relevant importance to Hawkins (context rather than content oriented).
hawkins did not justify or explain or go into details on what was said in #58. he deems it as such a misinformative and misrepresentative reference. not fulfilling the requirements to judge the validity of consciousness research.

regarding critique of AK in general (which is what Carroll and wiki draws from) hawkins responds as flws:

the supposed negative reports on kinesiology itself calibrate at 160, as they are mere polemics derived from false premises in that they violate the requirements for consciousness research validity. source: page 1 of this talk:site or else WBB dismissed and publisher confirmed spiritualwiki http://de.spiritualwiki.org/Hawkins/Skeptizismus#sHawkins.Skeptizismus_4 G11
I wrote, "Hawkins' quackery has only gone on for 'decades'", and you responded, "his first book came out in 1995. do the maths..." However, I was quoting Hawkins: "My books and the lectures I have given worldwide for decades are not about kinesiology..." Maybe he should "do the maths".
in fact you did not QUOTE hawkins - you paraphrased him derogatively. he started writing and lecturing way earlier than 1995. so his maths is right in that sentence. in yours it's not. G11
I wrote, "Grazia, I would also consider that perhaps spirituality and pseudoscience are separate issues." You responded, "i can quote you right on this page, where you said it the other way round. smile. a break in consistency." I believe you misinterpreted me.
no comment. read the respective entries.
many of the pseudosciences listed in wiki are calibrated plus 200 (integrity = true) by Hawkins. a few - as far as he refers to them - are below 200 (lacking of integrity = untrue). so hawkins and wiki alongside with reductionist-materialist model of reality differ in their judgement(s). a pseudoscientist and mystic is an oxymoron, however a possibility in wiki. that would translate as: a 'false(science) mystic'. mystics verily indulge in the science of consciousness. and only the artificial split of body:mind prohibits that the two go well together, which is a scientific mystic.
Edgar Mitchell, the 6th man on the moon and founder of IONS, had a mystic experience coming home to earth. hence he indulged in noetic sciences as he found that a NASA-man and a mystic do speak different languages while describing one and the same. he is a scientific mystic and i bet you that there are people critisizing him for doing what he is called to do. and btw, he i.e. IONS also hosted a conference on Maps of Consciousness and in 2003 invited Hawkins for a day seminar. rgds --Grazia11
How about you stop criticizing people's background and so on, and just stick to verifying information. --ArtAsLife 06:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
see above i commented on sources (here namely hawkins) who critisize (i.e. comment/respond) on the background/context/loc of their critizisers. when revealing you my preferences this is not critizising, this is my kind of differentiating. rgds --Grazia11 23:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
G11: "first you did defy the fact that Carroll is an atheist, now you confirm it." I never did this. Several times you have stated something I have done that is not true. I guess it "did not register". Of course Carroll is an atheist. Many intellectuals are. I repeat, so what? What does this have to do with CPU and AK?
" i enjoy discussions with agnostics far more than dealing with a fundamentalist." I believe you are a fundamentalist.
"Hawkins checked his critizer for his credibility" Statements like this show how little you know about what you are talking about. Hawkins stated that "Mr." Carroll (actually, "Dr.") had no published credentials. So you know, it is common for people with real PhDs to not need to flaunt it, so he refers to himself as "Robert Todd Carroll", but it is very easy to confirm that he has a doctorate. Further, Hawkins, who never earned a degree in philosophy, stated that Carroll did not seem to understand the subject. In fact, Carroll is a philosophy professor in California. Honestly, I see no need to continue along this line. Perhaps in email if you give it, but this is just a waste of time. I believe you blindly follow Hawkins and are not open to the truth if it disagrees with your belief system (that is, you are a fundamentalist, in my opinion). If Hawkins is OK with integrous atheists, why the complaint about Carroll? (Try not to appeal to pseudoscience, but rather rely on facts.) Hawkins also talks a lot about "truth". Carroll believes he is representing the truth. But he does not discount facts because they disagree with him as you do. If Hawkins is OK with integrous atheists, then you contradict yourself when you say Carroll is a problem for him. How do you determine an integrous from a nonintegrous atheist? (Without pseudoscience.)
If negative reports on AK are at 160, does this make the NLM and the NIH nonintegrous? Honestly, this is ludicrous. I will not be engaging in dialogue along these lines anymore. Your points are often babbling gibberish. Hawkins said "decades". I wrote "decades". Therefore his "maths" is correct, and mine is not? Are you insane? Regards, --ArtAsLife 23:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SpiritualWiki

I deleted some references from a German-language site called SpiritualWiki. [14] Another editor restored a reference, with this comment:

  • SpiritualWiki ref reinserted, it has an imprint and is a valid source of verification

Wikipedia:Reliable sources says:

  • Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources.

As a matter of fact, I checked one entry there which we use as a source[15], a supposed transcript of a radio interview [16], and found it full of errors. The quotations were paraphrases in no particular order that repeatedly failed to capture the actual meaning of the language. I do not see how this can be regarded as a reliable source. -Will Beback 10:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi WBB, unfortunately you do not understand the german headline which does not claim what you hold it for Auszugsweiser Überblick zum Thema Angewandte Kinesiologie von D. Hawkins - Quelle unter anderem: Beyond the Ordinary Webradio Interview "Transcending Obstacles", ab der 8. Minute und der 36. Minute, 9. August 2005 - it neither claims to provide direct quotations (quotes are outlined in green color) - what this headline claims is to deliver an OVERVIEW in extracts of statements of Hawkins on AK - going by its own peculiar order (which is not explained), one of the sources used for this collection being BTO, other sources are not specifically named. Clear? What is so difficult to ask me first, being the "German" among us, before drawing a conclusion. --Grazia11 16:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, a site that provides misqquotes is hardly reliable. Furthermore, wikis may not be used as sources. It doesn't matter what language they are in. I don't see how you can suggest I am misinterpreting WP:RS when its language is quite clear. -Will Beback 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
WBB, pls listen, show me first WHAT the misquote(s) which you've found in the site of kinesiologie - given what it claims. the only 2 quotes in the respective site and respective yellow box is written in italics and green color. (flwg the style in spiritualwiki).
re wikis may not be used as sources.
this is what i found on the referred page of "reliable sources": "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources that have made careful use of the primary-source material. ... in general [...] secondary sources are the stock material on which Wikipedia articles depend for their references." at the same time confirming that wpe does not meet its own standardspretty meagre.
now, if you go about this Hawkins article scrutinizingly adopting all these wp-style-standards, then all! critical links provided so far the nih/medpub would have to go completely (being unreliable sources acc wp:standards). the reference of a primary source (davidhawkins.info) and the same bio infos derived from Hawkins, then copied from the APA or the orthomulecar society are VALID, whereas a blogger's site held by a writer holding a Ph.D. who has invested a lot of detailed searching is deemed INVALD. to me that is applying the rules like a 'crazy cow'. and wiki says: nothing is written in stone. be sensible.
This kind of scutinity was not adopted at all before i have registered and started writing here. in fact, i have registered to learn about, how it is being done here - and i happen to be pretty informed in the lemma hawkins. how come that you would adopt double standards NOW? --Grazia11 18:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


The section of WP:RS that prohibits wikis is the same section that prohibits bulletin boards and forums. You were quite anxious to have the forums thrown out as sources, and I agreed. You can't have it both ways. As for the misquotes or random "extracts" of statements drawn from unknown sources, whatever you want to call them there is little there which is verifiably correct. -Will Beback 18:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The section of WP:RS that prohibits wikis is the same section that prohibits bulletin boards and forums. got that. You were quite anxious to have the forums thrown out as sources, and I agreed. the one who cleaned up the weblinks - who was that. agreeing and doing are 2 things. the rickross-cultwatch is gone, not because you've cleaned it up. the last 2 refs of rr - i did not omit them, who did? 2 rick ross refs were not related to the text. that's why i have removed them. the 2 welinks of 2 "unreliable critical sources are in WEBLINKS and in refs. neither you or AsL hastened to remove them. i have put them in some perspective - and left them. You can't have it both ways. you had it both ways, i.e. lobsided. As for the misquotes or random "extracts" of statements drawn from unknown sources, whatever you want to call them there is little there which is verifiably correct. to verify sources means to quote firsthand. that is limited by copyright laws. to quote firsthand is limited by the wiki-rule of "no primary sources" - do you see how this goes around in circles --Grazia11 18:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you want us to use wikis, bulletin boards, and forums as sources or don't you? I'm confused about what you're seeking. -Will Beback 18:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Will, US does not exist primarily. right now, 3 authors are active in the hawkins article. find out where you are at in your wants. good thing is that you take care to check links, especially the ones pro Hawkins. Aal takes an anti-spiritual position and advocates for arguments of cultwatch movement and scientific scientists. he is hardly interested in writing a balanced NPOW = unbiassed article, i guess.
my view: NPOV is not possible in its deepest sense, objectivity is a myth, subjectivity always plays into it. my orientation is pro-spiritual and I happen to have a lot of insight in the lemma (= dictionary entry, headword) and i'm interested enough to provide information plus many sources.
the section on hawkins teachings i.e. was poorly written. hardly any knowledge on his body of teachings was demonstrated by the authors so far. nagbits were made prevalent. why did hardly anybody care to infuse 'good stuff'. the talk page shows that 1 user (AustinKnight) who seemed to have pretty much insight into the lemma was completely silenced in the course of affairs. this is a sign for POV in its gravest sense.
spiritually orientend people usually do not engage in contentiuous places like this. that is why it was left there - unchallenged for some months, I guess. what I've found (after checking it out) is, the inserts were directly copied (in parts) from rick ross and/or carroll (skepdic) and not referenced, as the sources were poorly referenced as well. this article had a meagre info standard (possibly particially deliberately? done so - 15/50 workers ... 2/3 years).
it was cluttered with cynicism rather than feasible objections. and it was not made clear, what is what (no extra criticism section existed).
what do i suggest? presently i would allow verifiable sources in the reference section, pro, neutral and con. i think there is an unneccessary list of links (8 in a row) on AK as a pseudoscience which are a direct repeat of refs. presented already the article applied kinesiology. repetitions of this kind - what are they for? is that common use in wpe (english wikipedia)? i would cut these double refs down or cut them out completely. they do not refer to Hawkins' version of AK (see dentistry refs et al.), the 2 wiki links take care of that completely. general objections against AK are given elsewhere at the respective lemmas. specific objections on Hawkins AK version was only given by Carroll, an outspoken atheist, whose entries are formally objected (as a 'reliable' source for discussion of spiritual matters) by the living person Hawkins (or a not yet identified person).
i would not insert spiritualwiki.de (Hawkins database) in the weblinks section (in wpe), however keep it in the refs section. i would accept blog refs. of distinguished persons like http://drjoesonceuponatime.blogspot.com/2006/05/david-r-hawkins-life-and-enlightement.html lik Carroll J. Wright Ph.D. and other blogs with decent language, as for needed citation.
it's easier to find wiki-standard links on Nieztsche or so than an on living controversial persons. that is why i would not apply the wiki rules like cut in stone. most important is: balanced information! on the lemma. (i.e. Hawkins here) and reducing possible downgrading. --Grazia11 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm having trouble following what you're saying. I don't know what "wpe", or "lemma" are. In any case, as long as we agree to omit SpiritualWiki, along with "posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs", then we're both on the same page. -Will Beback 23:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Will, see above i have inserted the words in question. http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=on&search=lemma&relink=on wonder that you are unfamiliar with 'lemma'. in germany wp = abbrev. for wikipedia, wpe = abbrev. for the english speaking wikipedia. spiritualWiki is a source (see above) recommended by a notable publisher (German publisher of Hawkins' material and others) - on its website. so this wiki is off the nogo 'rule'.

wp:reliable sources: Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher ... We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher.

i still wonder, why you start being scrutinizing now and have not taken care in that sense before i've arrived here. - i came to verify so much with links, cause you've insisted in verification. slander i.e. - in many cases - can easily be verified, and mustn't be the truth at all. rgds --Grazia11 09:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the translations. But no, merely being recommended does not override the standards of reliability. Wikis are unreliable because anyone can edit them, because we don't know who has edited them, because there may not be any proper review of edits, etc. Furthermore, we know that this particualr wiki is unreliable because they have proven it on two occasions - once by copying material from a talk page here and asserting it as the writing of D. Hawkins, and once by sloppily creating a list of quotations that weren't accurate. I'd be happy to scrutinze other links once we can agree on this one. Meantime, if we can't agree we'll have to bring in other editors, probably with a Request for Comment. -Will Beback 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
WBB But no, merely being recommended does not override the standards of reliability. Wikis are unreliable because anyone can edit them, because we don't know who has edited them, because there may not be any proper review of edits, etc. accepted.

Furthermore, we know that this particualr wiki is unreliable because they have proven it on two occasions - once by copying material from a talk page here and asserting it as the writing of D. Hawkins i do see this talk page entry claimed as written by Hawkins as valid, as long as you cannot come up with an official nono-reply from Hawkins (office) - wonder why you have not yet rcvd any reply. so this is not an argument for me. and once by sloppily creating a list of quotations that weren't accurate. you have no way to disprove that these paraphrases of different sources (only 1 named properly) are not accurate. your argument is not correct. copyright standards do not allow proper quotation lists only.

to me spiritualwiki is a trustworthy enough source, being accepted in abt. 10 entries (weblinks section) in the german wikipedia. plus it is recommended by a publisher.
I'd be happy to scrutinze other links once we can agree on this one. ok, tell me what is (un)reliable on the source on the critical weblinks section.
Meantime, if we can't agree we'll have to bring in other editors, probably with a Request for Comment. this is in the range of possibilities.

for me a WIKI (any wiki) is a reliable, however occasionally questionable source. otherwise i would not bother writing here in this wiki. the things in question can be set 'right' by those who care and happen to know better, providing even 'better' sources. and this is the case with spiritualwiki. you can write in there and make a list of only BTO quotes, that would make it a reliable source acc. to your standards?

btw, any internet source is possibly unreliable, as all of them can be terminated (or changed in content) eventually. rgds --Grazia11 23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you think wikis are reliable, but the standards for this project are different. Until the guideline is changed, we should not include wikis, blog commetns, bulletin boards, etc. as sources. If you'd like to find other sources for the same material then that's fine. Until there is a consensus to include this source, I'm removing it. -Will Beback 00:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased authors

"Aal takes an anti-spiritual position and advocates for arguments of cultwatch movement and scientific scientists. he is hardly interested in writing a balanced NPOW = unbiassed article, i guess." It is hard to keep up on everything that has been written and changed here, but I did notice this sentence and wanted to comment on it. 1) I am certainly not "anti-spiritual." It is quite silly to equate pseudoscience with spirituality. Did you not see that I referenced the Buddha? He was opposed to miracles, was a nontheist, and agreed with being mindful, honest and truthful. I regard this as spiritual. Do you not see the Buddha as teaching spirituality? 2) I do advocate for arguments from the "cultwatch movement"; so does Hawkins (just not regarding himself). Remember that whole "discernment" thing? Only difference between Hawkins and myself in determining whether or not something is a cult, is that he advocates pressing on people's arms to determine this, whereas I believe objectivity and reason are far better measuring tools. 3) Your typo is very funny, but I'd suggest it is a bit of a Freudian slip -- "scientific scientists." You are very correct. Skepticism is a healthy part of the scientific endeavor itself (for wonderful references on this, please see the books of Dr. Carl Sagan, among others). Hawkins separates the two (science and skepticism) probably for self-preservation (he has criticized Randi as being below 200, for example). 4) I do not wish to violate having a balanced article. This article for the majority of its existence I believe was mostly slanted in favor of Hawkins. Grazia happened to come in after the article became more balanced. (Now it is slanted again, as an unbiased person objectively observed.) I am more than willing to have a balanced view. Further, you happen to be living in a culture that considers pseudoscience to be real and out of the mainstream. If this is a problem for you, then all encyclopedias, universites, etc., will go against your beliefs. --ArtAsLife 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

@Aal Aal: 1) I am certainly not "anti-spiritual."

we/I do not chose to discuss your (understanding of) spirituality, Aal. it's about your obvious bias regarding this lemma.
-Who is "we"? What is "lemma" again? I have no bias in the article. If I have a bias, clearly you do also. The point is that factual and balanced information is reflected in the article, something I am clearly committed to.
i do not approve of your discussion style Aal, still i will answer mostly.
WE are the ones who are interested in writing/discussing an article on Hawkins that keeps up with several regulations and is not biassed in scienticism or debunking skepticism.

Aal: It is quite silly to equate pseudoscience with spirituality.

i've seen entries (and their introductory remarks) in wikipedia, wherein a person was given the attributes 'mystic' and 'pseudoscientist' in ONE sentence. that's how 'silly' some wikipedia authors may turn out to write. and this was a violation of the rules. the admin didn't care about them.
-I see "mystic" and "pseudoscience" as different, and believe a person can be both a mystic and a pseudoscientist. It looks like Hawkins is both, whereas someone like Huang Po, for example, was only a mystic.
"Physicists do not need Mysticism, and Mystics do not need Physics, but Humanity needs both." said Fritjof Capra
and i have many revealing quotes on that respect by D. Hawkins, however i dont deem it worth the while to reveal them here.

Aal: I referenced the Buddha? He was opposed to miracles, was a nontheist, […] Do you not see the Buddha as teaching spirituality?

what for do you want to discuss this subject here?
-You rudely assumed I was "anti-spiritual"; have I no right to provide factual information with evidence?
i told you once before that it is not on me/us to discuss our spirituality or atheismis or ...ism (this is a private discussion - for that you can email me) - what is of interest here is: do authors here project on the lemma? what rides them sub-consciously which goes against the wiki policies? can disputes be solved? i disagree with your lobsided interpretation of wiki policies. wiki authors are no judges of living persons. they are to describe them, their life and actions and describe their social effects and to represent the sourced critique and hand a chance to the living person to respond to this critique (which might infringe their personal lives - all this in a balanced manner.

it is maybe an issue in the Gautama Buddha discussion site. for sure Buddha taught spirituality. regarding theological questions the Buddha reacted as follows. and people kept interpreting him:

The Buddha was often asked whether God existed. Usually, he replied with a complete silence. Once, however, he told the story of the man shot by a poisoned arrow.
When the doctor came and wanted to pull the arrow out of the wound, the man grabbed the doctor's hand and asked:
"Before you start treating me, Doctor, tell me, who was it that shot me? Was he of warrior class or some other class? Was he tall or was he short? Was he young or was he old? Was he dark skinned or light skinned?"
The doctor ignored the questions and pulled the arrow out. Had he answered the questions, the patient would have died.
That is why, said the Buddha, I will not answer your question about God. If I did, you would just spend your time in endless speculation, and never awaken from your current state.
-I find that quote is brilliant, am aware of it, and it is in fact one of my all-time favorites. Of interest also is this particular passage is one of my key disagreements with all of Hawkins' system -- it leads to arguments, etc., and is not really spiritual, as the Buddha describes spirituality.
have many more brilliant quotes - and can assure you that any brilliant teacher was/is attacked as hell (him/her being threat to the ego's unchallenged reign). buddha was given venom (to blow him out), jesus crucified, socrates was sentenced to a venom death etc.

Aal: 2) I do advocate for arguments from the "cultwatch movement"; so does Hawkins (just not regarding himself).

Hawkins advocates to check out all spiritual teachers and teachings including himself/his. the/his final teacher is God.
-Please give a reference for this.
his books, DVD-interview 2002
Question: “What is due to the teacher?”
Answer: Nothing at all. The listener’s interest is more than sufficient. The only obligation one should accept is the obligation to one’s own self to institute the wisdoms that were learned and to practice them in order to transcend the ego. Respect the teacher but save reverence only for God. D. Hawkins, book "I", p. 18
Do not become attached to the teacher. Look rather at how to apply the teachings to your life. D. Hawkins, Satsang in Sedona, Mai 10, 2006
It's the truth that is your real teacher and not a person. […] it is not the person that teaches anyway. It‘s only a certain awareness that speaks for itself. It never is the physical teacher who serves primarily as an insprisration, a source of information. But you don’t want to get caught up in the personality of the teacher. Hawkins, Webradio Interview in Beyond the Ordinary, Dezember 9, 2003, realplayer Audio, min. 25:00
Spiritual temptation and being tested is constant. […] Spiritual progress is resisted by the ego. […] The test for a spiritual teacher is egotism, vanity, sexual opportunities that are thrown on you, temptation of every kind, the fall for wealth and pomp […] [grandiosity, the wish to be paraded, worshipped, materiality, adulation, flattery, megalomania]. Hawkins, BtO Webradio Interview, minute 46, Juli 13, 2004
the arguments of cultwatchers are tainted (atheistically and otherwise) - in many cases.
-Shawn Nevins, Andrew P., and I are certainly spiritual people. So is everyone I am aware of who combats mind control cults (e.g., Steve Hassan is Jewish, even on the RR site forum people there were clearly spiritual, but rightly disagreed with Hawkins).
ask Hawkins or better the Buddha (if you may) or a trusted high ranking teacher like huang po - he/she will let you know the answer that fits to that, given the respective person who asks the question.
Stephen Hassan's site has no entry on Hawkins.
-Yet. Give it a few months.
no cult watcher (not even the low ranking ones) in germany has any entry on Hawkins. wiki did call him a pseudoscientist (copying the english version), despite the fact that this is not a allowed acc german wiki rules. AK is a lemma deemed a pseudoscience and reference to this is legitimate and can be made. it is not to be burdened on the living person(s), rather on their used tool(s), which a rational-materially oriented fraction in the modern world dismisses and criticizes as it does not fulfill the set standards they adhere to.
not so Rick Ross and the 2 cultwatchers accepted by some wiki authors (such aas Aal, who has not provided their emailed confirmations here as to verify his claims on them) as reliable sources, not able/willing to quote properly on their subjects nor to offer a proper imprint on their sites.
-What is this about? Nevins and "Mr. P."? I am taken off guard here and do not really understand your complaint. Do you want me to email them about an imprint? Did you not do so? What would you like done? I will contact them for you if you do not want to.
probably you have not attentively observed this discussion here. page 1 starts with a clean up call re sources like nevins and mr. p. -- i do not have any right to have you do this and that, except follow the wiki rules (herein). you might consider to bring your evidences on their existence and authorship yourself. websites with no imprint are deemed 'not reliable sources', even if you happen to know their originators in person. it's not on me or you to judge Nevins of P's level of spirituality, question is if their sites fulfill wiki reliable source standards. no, i do not care about them cleaning their act up. i and other writers in here told the authors that websites with no proper imprints are not fulfilling the wiki standard. the ones who submitted those improper pages did not remove them. even if you bring in their mailed msg that they themselves have written whatever one could argue like WBB or ? did it in case of Hawkins submitted letter in here. SOMEBODY might have written it. placing any letter is not deemed a verification. and even if it is accepted as a verification, it still does not count, cause it is selfreferencing to wiki. and even if you find another site to reference this mailed message it will be found out to be a wiki = unreliable source. and even if this wiki meets the exceptions to this rule, it will still be dismissed; and even if an arbiter is suggested for this, he/she will not be provided. such was the ruling applied to D. Hawkins whose bio is written here, who himself was denied to give proper response to claims against him. and this is contra the wiki rules re 'biographies of living persons'. get it?

Aal: I believe objectivity and reason are far better measuring tools.

I believe that you (and nobody) can claim to be objective and/or reasonable in its very sense.
-Is the earth roughly spherical, or is it flat and held up on the back of a turtle? Of course I can be objective, and so can many other people.
no comment - do your homework first in google and in quantum physics i.e.
objectivity is a myth - and science knows about that (Heisenberg's principle). and sceptic scienticism is not at all objective. it follows an objective.
-This is not true. Do you have references besides your Hawkins belief system? So in place of reason and science, you would replace it with...AK?!?! Wow. I guess objectivity certainly is a myth for some people.
even though more than enough references are given (see above) here are some more:
It is said that we human beings are rational animals. On account of this, we devalue emotions and exalt rationality so much that, whenever we see some complex behaviour in a non-human animal, we want to ascribe rational thinking to it. In this process, we have made the notion of objective reality a reference to something that we deem universal and independent of what we do, and which we use as an argument aimed at compelling someone to do something against his or her will. Humberto Maturana, radical constructivist,nobel laureate, Chile, article 'Reality', The Irish Journal of Psychology, Vol. 9 (1988), no. 1, pp. 25-82
"I used to believe that we must choose between science and reason on one hand, and spirituality on the other, in how we lead our lives. Now I consider this a false choice. We can recover the sense of sacredness, not just in science, but in perhaps every area of life." Larry Dossey, M.D., "Reinventing Medicine"
In the entire process of cosmic evolution you see a spiritual process as well as a material process. You can't separate the two. Rupert Sheldrake
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all art and science. He to whom the emotion is stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. Albert Einstein

Aal: Skepticism is a healthy part of the scientific endeavor itself

agreed. phyrro's and Descartes kind practice of scepticism is deemed integrous (loc 200) by Hawkins, not so the modern rational sceptical movement (see his letter here). the german wikipedia has clearly seperated Skepsis/scepticism from the modern sceptic movement. and the German CSICOP equivalent GWUP confirms that they are far away from Pyrrho's way.
-What is your point?
did mention it to you before - a month ago. it did not register. so why bother any more. do your homework if you are truly interested.

Aal: Hawkins separates the two (science and skepticism) probably for self-preservation (he has criticized Randi as being below 200, for example).

Randi is mentioned among the debunkers in wikipedia, an article which is suggested to be merged with the lemma scientific scepticism. see this if you like: http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/ and check some of the material of Marcello Truzzi and Edgar Wunder, both ex editors of CSICOP/GWUP magazines and active in their own sense of integrity afterwards.
Modern society worships science and not God. Thus science itself is the home of a mechanistic reductionism and determinism which is held with the prevailing dogma that rivals that of the Church in the Middle Ages. quote by D. Hawkins The Eye of the I, p. 58
-Did you want to prove this, or is quoting Hawkins the final word on everything?
no comment.

Aal: I do not wish to violate having a balanced article.

i do not trust such a claims (also not when repeated several times) observing how you act here.
-Please clarify with examples. Doesn't this violate Wikipedia policy?
metadiscursive comment: i did that several times already. it does not register. i do not answer suggestive questions.

Aal: This article for the majority of its existence I believe was mostly slanted in favor of Hawkins.

I did not check its whole history. i read the discussion site and it shows clearly slanting in an anti-Hawkins version - and this is not adhering to wiki policy on bios of living persons.
-I disagree. I believe you see bias all the time because you have a bias.
no comment. see above.

Aal: Grazia happened to come in after the article became more balanced.

I came in when the article was is an awful state of being - far removed from balanced decription of the lemma adhering wiki standards. it was full of (unsourced or badly sourced) hawkins bashing badly copied from Carroll's writings and a discussion forum with bad language.
-Please back up with evidence. You are good at making bold claims, but short on evidence to back them up (like your guru).
plenty of evidence was given / is to be read on discussion page 1 and 2. read closely instead of asking for rehashes. 1 tip: rick ross forum and the misquoting there which was copied in here.

Aal: (Now it is slanted again, as an unbiased person objectively observed.)

Alas, Aal, again you 'prove' my remark right that objectivity is a myth.
-I believe it is true for you, but not for rational people.
this is of no interest for the lemma. which is neither for me nor for 'rational people'. btw, socalled 'rational people' are not entitled by ratio (or what?) to bash a living person in their encyclopedic bio. critique derived from reliable sources can be written - in the critique section only, not all over the place. the rest of the article is: representative sourced description of the lemma.
the 'unbiased person' MastCell is part of the anti-fraction in the article Orthomolecular medicine. he has admittedly no idea about the lemma here - whereas he has an interest to see his view of OM unchallenged.
-I read that he saw it as a Hawkins blog. Makes sense to me.
does hawkins bashing make sense to you as well? does it abide to wiki rules?

Aal: I am more than willing to have a balanced view.

hmm. i note that you're repeating yourself. alas, i do not see evidence for that. cui bono?
-Please provide evidence. I repeat myself in response to you (like when you called my reponses to your ranting a rant).
pls check above - there you find the very same promise of yours. this is your evidence. these are words, evidence is how one is able and willing to apply them.

Aal: Further, you happen to be living in a culture that considers pseudoscience to be real and out of the mainstream. If this is a problem for you, then all encyclopedias, universites, etc., will go against your beliefs.

wiki is not on my or your beliefs. wiki is on representing the respective lemmas according its directions - in best case. here: bios of living persons.
rgds --Grazia11 00:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
-Mainstream science is recognized in all encyclopedias and universities. Aside from delusions, the scientific method in fact is designed to get the bias out of the way. Do you really think that Hawkins is right and all of science is incorrect? This is a belief, not a fact. --ArtAsLife 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
now we would have to start all over again. objectivity (aka factuality) is a myth. see above.
a bio on a living person is to give information not to bog down this living person by the view of a fraction of the world, which may well critique on that living person (with reliable sources). it is of no interest what wiki authors think personally. they are not the judges. external judges however may be quoted (given reliable sources). and wiki is not interested in the truth per se, only in reliable verification.
regards --Grazia11 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
"this is a private discussion - for that you can email me" I agree. Please provide your email address.
E-mail this user is a wiki feature under toolbox on the left side bar. my email address is cfmd to wiki. it should work i hope. G11
Hawkins could respond on his own web sites, rather than via Wikipedia.
would you do that if you were in his case, Aal? not every reader of his website is interested in his stand re Carroll. he himself did not respond in here, user -66.69.219.9 submitted it.
same question i have asked WBB earlier. the way it is handled here is a catch22 for critiqued living persons in wiki. as long as nl #58 does not appear on the article hawkins request is respected. no need then for stating his response to it for balancing reasons. G11
I've emailed both Shawn Nevins and Andrew P. regarding providing an imprint. In January 2006, another pro-Hawkins editor, Paddel, noted that not having an imprint is "not a criteria for removal."
the one who brought it up first is Will Beback 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Paddel did confirm it though. none brought up a wiki guideline regarding this issue 'reliable sources' wiki standard (not Hawkins standard).
paddel listed on page 1 (archive) the flwg:
Applied Kinesiology and other general topics are discussed (and criticized) on their own entries in the Wikipedia, not here. Just make a link to those.
this is exactly what i kept saying. the 8 refs to AK are just copied from the main page and are unnessary repeat. what is good wiki style in this case, WBB? best is you ref it with a respective wiki guideline re how to handle critique. G11
I believe there is a difference between criticizing a teacher for teaching spirituality, and rationally and scientifically pointing out scientific flaws. I would also note that there is a difference between what Hawkins states, and the facts of the matter. People who believe in Hawkins rely on him for calibrations, even if he states that people should not rely on teachers. (We can discuss in email, rather than here.)
no further comment. except this one:
3. Presume no actual reliable knowledge of anything at all. Ask God to reveal its meaning. D. Hawkins, »Transcending the Levels of Consciousness« p. 333 (2006) G11
I am not sure if my point got across. I put no bias in the article. You show a bias. The point is to not allow our opinions to get into the article. I believe we are agreed on this. If we veer, someone will correct it. My other point is that there is to you a fundamental "bias" in our entire culture regarding pseudoscience. This is a fact. If you go to an American university, you will not learn (except apparently in Reams' class) Hawkins, but will be taught that AK is a pseudoscience. This is a fact. Therefore, if this is indeed a "bias" (as opposed to truth and fact), then it is all-pervasive in our culture, our institutions, our universities, our text books, our encyclopedias, and even Wikipedia. This is not incorrect as it is the height of human knowledge that we have today. So to the extent that you believe I have a "bias", it is simply the learned knowledge of the culture in which I was enculturated. In effect, it is not a "bias", but the truth as our society views it.
Aal: there is to you a fundamental "bias" in our entire culture regarding pseudoscience. […] if this is indeed a "bias" […], then it is all-pervasive in our culture, […] our encyclopedias, and even Wikipedia.
indeed, Aal, now you've got it. G11
Aal: to the extent […] I have a "bias", it is simply the learned knowledge of the culture -- it is not a "bias", but the truth as our society views it
is there such a thing as pinned downed/downable truth on earth? you and Andrew P warned of the blind faith to X's calibrations. wonder why you would not consider abt warning of blind faith to bias, i.e. state of the art 'truth' of modern science (i.e. scientific scepticism)? G11
the paradigm of science ends acc to hawkins scale at 499. and wiki's general level is at 350, whereas Hawkins article a year back was at 400 - this without the mentioning of Carroll's critique (160). when it was added the overall level resulted at 200 (just about integrous/'true'). G11
To say that objectivity is a myth is just too extreme. Think in practical terms; is the earth round or flat? Does the earth revolve around the sun, or vice versa? This is too much of a side-track. We can email about it if you wish.
Aal: To say that objectivity is a myth is just too extreme.
not at all. alas, that's a tude/judgement.
in the Newtontian paradigm reality is seen within the model of form and causality (causation). cause exists within the reality of the physical world - and consciousness (the nonlinear) is basically banned.
The world of form, the linear world, is solvable as decribed by Sir Isaac Newton by the [calculus'] //check the graph named Newton-iteration//. That which is beyond the differential calculus deludes the understanding of the scientist. The scientist limits himself to the mechanical physical world and says 'Unless you can measure it, it's not real'. This presumes then that there is objective reality that exists independent of consciousness and we send machines out to report back to us. […] Reality with a capital 'R' then is purely subjective, reality with a small 'r' is objective and spiritual reality is nonmeasurable. You can't identify and measure how much happiness, how much love, how much peace, how much serenity a person has, and how much value and meaning something has to a person.
source: D. Hawkins, Consciousness: How to Tell the Truth About Anything Vol. IV, lecture on DVD/video l of 2, min 8:40ff G11
The scientists you quoted would not regard objectivity as a myth, and Einstein did not believe in a personal god. It would be impossible to be a biologist, for example, without a world to discover through science.
Newton was a scientist and an alchemist. Prof. Amit Goswami is a mystical nuclear scientist who has 'proven' God by turning the (linear) world upside down. http://www.wie.org/j11/goswami.asp
nobody needs to believe in a personal god. the nonlinear God (i.e. consciousness) is a matter of experiencing and subjectivity. u might ask the biologist Rupert Sheldrake about his take on things. G11
Let's just stick to verifying information. --ArtAsLife 07:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
smile. rgds --Grazia11
Andrew Paterson of London UK got back with me. See here: [17]. Does this suffice? --ArtAsLife 16:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
so be it. andrew is now known with (his) full name, a rather good looking photo and from now on a proper imprint on his website. welcome to the new wikiuser 89.241.186.59 . how about that wikis talk page has instigated another website change? rgds --Grazia11 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I just wrote a lengthy response to the above, but ran into an edit conflict and all of the information was deleted. I will try to reconstruct what I wrote from memory.
Regarding whether there is an objective reality for science to discover, I will no longer comment on as this is a matter of faith. To even be a "scientist" assumes there is a world to discover and wonder about. I just finished watching two science programs today, one with Eric Kandel in which he stated this century will be devoted to brain and mind, and another in which the scientist spoke mystically of us being the Cosmos. I believe G11 is operating on a false dilemma. What Hawkins wrote is hilarious! He is thinking of logical positivism, but there has been much learned in the philosophy of science since this time. It is criticized in universities as well. In mysticism and the perennial philosophy, the duality of subjective and objective breaks down; so not only is Hawkins' work not science, it is not true mysticism (because he negates the objective in favor of the subjective). Simply read Huang Po or any of the other teachers he recommends and you will discover this. I do believe in the God you described. Anyway, if I remember anything else that I wrote before it was deleted, I will add it. Last thing, Andrew had already added that information awhile ago, we just were unaware of it. And I thought he looked handsome in the photo, too, and told him so. Regards, --ArtAsLife 02:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Oh, another thing I wrote is that love and peace can in fact be measured, for example by measuring brain waves. --ArtAsLife 02:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Shawn Nevins has included this note to the spiritualteachers.org home page: "Questions and comments to: sanevins2 (at) yahoo.com. Unless otherwise indicated, Shawn Nevins is the author of all text on this website. Though some users have requested biographical information about me, I have no interest in writing about my self. My work should stand on its own; in the light of your intuition and reason." [18] He's also included a link to one of Andrew's pages, the "false guru test": [19]
G11, I respect you as a person and do not believe that our dialogue is beneficial. I commented more fully before about the quote from Hawkins above (before the edit conflict deleted the info). On a basic level, I find it silly to assume that all of science is wrong, and one man is right. I do not believe I can convince you of this, and honestly I do not feel the need to. I think we inadvertantly diverted the purposes of this talk page to some extent, as I know you agree. For matters of faith, we can email each other if we want to. But as for Wikipedia, I think we agree that we will just stick to verifying information. Thanks a lot, --ArtAsLife 21:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

I placed the "non-encyclopedic tone" template. The article currently reads like a mix of factual detail and Dr. Hawkin's blog. I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, and this has clearly been the subject of heavy editing, but the tone should really come more in line with the encyclopedic for this to be high-quality Wikipedia article. MastCell 21:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

interesting, mastcell, that you would place a non-encyclopedic tag, not knowing about the subject. how come that you did not tag this article in its much less wiki standard before it was heavily edited? btw, i am from germany. unfortunately, the 2 co-writers did not care all too long to correct my languaging. references for claims were asked for and given, partially also for unreferenced claims written in the article before october.
i don't see, that somebody not familiar with the lemma and seemingly not willing to help correct it in the requested sense is the one to tag an article like you did. alas, still learning about wiki rules in general and in the US. and yes i am not finished with this article. rgds --~Grazia11~
I would edit the text, which does need improvement, but it has undergone nearly 400 edits in the past month. Once the stream of revisions is done then copyediting will be in order. Until then it's too much of a moving target for me to tackle. -Will Beback 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the rapid fire editing has slowed. We should pick up on this to get the "tone" message of the article soon. There is so much on it to deal with. I wish us luck, --ArtAsLife 00:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Carroll's Newsletter

While Hawkins sees Carroll's newsletter as a blog-site, I never viewed it that way. Were this in print rather than online, he would mail, rather than email (which he does), these newsletters. I do not believe a newsletter is a blog, perhaps I am wrong, but they seem different to me. Also, are we not going to add back the official skepdic link, aside from a reference? And if not deemed a blog, are we going to add back the article? It does fit one of the citations needed that Grazia has not backed up yet (regarding Hawkins' response to CPU).--ArtAsLife 19:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

@Aal - Aal: While Hawkins sees Carroll's newsletter as a blog-site, I never viewed it that way. […]I do not believe a newsletter is a blog, perhaps I am wrong ...
did you just admit that the author of the letter posted on page 1 (archive) of this discussion site is Hawkins indeed? how come that you just would not accept this as a verified document?

maybe WBB has an idea how blog is defined?

Aal: It does fit one of the citations needed that Grazia has not backed up yet (regarding Hawkins' response to CPU).
still working on that one. it takes time. //meanwhile i have provided verification on talk page, which was at hand all along Nov 5// are you working on yours, Aal. rgds --00:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Grazia11
I personally do believe it is Hawkins, based on my reading of him. But WBB holds to high Wikipedia standards, and I certainly agree that to reference it, this should be verified. Just because I believe it is Hawkins, does not make it so, or make it verifed. I could be wrong.
No I am not working on mine, I already found it in the Carroll newsletter. --ArtAsLife 01:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

quel dommage! occasionally a poorly ref'd source. see talk page of Skeptic's Dictionary. rgds --Grazia11 00:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I contacted Veritas Publishing. Regarding RT Carrol's article, Sonia Martin of Veritas confirmed that Dr. Hawkins' response at this discussion is from Dr. Hawkins. They were very kind and stated that they will be addressing some of the problems that wikipedia has commented on in an article they will include on his web site in the near future. --LilaDonovan 21:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawkins' biographical claims

I am currently researching as many of Hawkins' biographical claims as I have time for (which, unfortunately, is not as much as is needed). If anyone else would also like to take this on, that would be great. He lists all of his achievements here: [20]. Notably missing is CPU. He is no longer "knighted by the Danish crown" due to shining light on his credentials. Let's see what else gives way under scrutiny.

So far, one has paid off (and I only started this yesterday). Hawkins' web site states: Training Psychoanalysis by Prof. Lionel Oversey, M.D., at Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute. I contacted the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research. Here is the response:

I do not have any record of a David Ramon Hawkins studying at our Institute.

However, Lionel Ovesey, M.D. did graduate from the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Center in June 1948.

If you email me your mailing address, I will send you a a 3 page obit on Dr. Ovesey which describes his life’s work.

Sincerely, Joan Jackson

(email address to confirm is: jwj1@columbia.edu )

So, this claim is also false.

I believe Hawkins may have recieved personal psychoanalysis from this man (based on Hawkins' interviews), and Oversey graduated from the Columbia institute, but there is no connection between Columbia and Hawkins. It is official. --ArtAsLife 16:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To further show that I am certainly interested in having a balanced article that represents the truth, I just recieved a response from the APA: Thank you for your recent inquiry to the American Psychiatric Association. Yes, we can verify that Dr. David R. Hawkins is a Distinguished Life Fellow of the APA. (email to confirm: apa@psych.org ) --ArtAsLife 17:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this stuff is hard to track down. For example, as Will Beback also brought up before, who exactly gave him the title of Teacher of Enlightenment in Korea? How can we verify this? Several claims I looked up, only to find that Hawkins is the only person mentioning certain statements on the whole of the internet. Another claim has been verified. He states that he presented at the International Conference on Science and Consciousness -- here is the proof (even has a photo I have never seen before): [21]. This is some very silly stuff. Check out the other presenters. Here is the home page: [22]. In addition to conferences supposedly on "Science and Consciousness", they also host conferences on "Shamanism" (even Hawkins views this subject as negative), and "Sacred Sexuality"! Looks more to be about New Age pseudoscience, rather than the legitimate scientific study of concsiousness (which is a very interesting subject).--ArtAsLife 18:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

@Aal - Aal: I am currently researching as many of Hawkins' biographical claims
and the intention for doing that is to find the truth and nothing but the truth? and the truth behind the truth? keeping in mind that there are several levels of truth.
I respect your beliefs, but I do not believe that they represent the truth.
remember wiki is not in for truth, only for verification, NOR and NPOV.
Aal: Notably missing is CPU.
i guess much more of what you and ? want to know is missing (given your attitude). and on all of Hawkins' books the title Ph.D. is notified - how about that?
This really misses the point. Of course he states that he is a Ph.D. He never states where it is from. It is not from Columbia University, for example, but from Columbia Pacific University. For a teacher who is very concerned about context and integrity, it is notable to not include this fact in any of his books or online.
(By the way, what do you mean by "you and ?"?)
you and those who tend to be on your bandwaggon.
it is already noted in the article that hawkins does not refer to CPU on his homepage, whereas he claims his title. why bother on this any longer.
Aal: He is no longer "knighted by the Danish crown"
fine. the prince of Schaumburg-Lippe (German nobility) was mentioned on this site page 1 by the silenced author who seemed to provide some detailed knowledge on Hawkins. now Hawkins brings it out on his site. the acceptance was in 1995, the knighting ceremony in 2000.
It is curious that you refer to the former author as "silenced". Who silenced him?
yes, this is an interesting question and the motives behind. have commented on that already.
SFTS states the ceremony was definitely not in 2000.
thats also fine. the hawkins crew doesnt seem to be too hung up in numbers of names. lets hope that also this shall pass (be corrected finally).
Aal: due to shining light on his credentials. Let's see what else gives way under scrutiny.
i've suggested to WBB to mention the knighting debacle also to Hawkins office staff. the correction on his site could be due to this email inquiry which outcome (if there is some) has not been revealed to us here yet.
Aal: Hawkins' web site states: Training Psychoanalysis by Prof. Lionel Oversey, M.D., at Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute. I contacted the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research. Here is the response: "I do not have any record of a David Ramon Hawkins studying at our Institute."
where exactly does Hawkins claim to have studied at Oversey's university?
There is no Oversey university. Oversey graduated from Columbia. Hawkins states he was trained by Oversey at Columbia. Columbia has no record of him.
Oversey's university where he graduated and taught (?) is Columbia university. Hawkins has records of his psychiatrist graduation, maybe APA too. he is a honored member for 50 years membership.

and even universities and their secys may err. and who knows who is the SOMEBODY who has written the mail. so and so - it is a wiki selfreference, which does not count.

what does 'training pa' mean?
Not sure, I did not state that. Oh, "Training Psychoanalysis." It means that Hawkins was trained in psychoanalysis therapy by Oversey at Columbia. I do not believe Oversey even taught there, but he did graduate from there. Where did Oversey teach, if he taught pa? Not at Columbia. Maybe we can find out where. Columbia is in the process of sending me information of Oversey. Perhaps this can be found online, also.
go ahead, friend. :)
would you consider to clarify this question raised by his bio-site and the CU PA institute by mailing to hawkins office?
Sure, I would consider it. But, why do not you do it yourself? Haven't you already been in touch with the office? I know SFTS emailed them.
see, i do not see a need nor an impulse for that. you have started the project. with what motivation? yes i had an email exchange with hawkins office staff. and it was not related to wiki affairs.
Aal: So, this claim is also false.
it's correct that you, Aal, have jumped to conclusion prematureley before having done thorough research - with Oversey's heirs i.e. and Hawkins i.e.
What do you mean by Oversey's heirs? I do not follow this. I consider a response from Columbia stating there was no Hawkins at their university to be thorough research. What else would you expect me to do in this case? Whether Hawkins agrees or not, the university says he didn't go there. That is thorough.
i mean that Oversey might be dead by now and that his children might be able and willing to serve questions. hawkins has not clearly stated that he graduated in Columbia. so nothing to disprove. he said that he got training from overseys and that is still to prove, if you doubt it. in the article no claim of hawkins graduating at columbia university is written. and the discussion site is not for disproving hawkins but discussing unclear entries in the article.
Aal: I believe Hawkins may have recieved personal psychoanalysis from this man (based on Hawkins' interviews), and Oversey graduated from the Columbia institute, but there is no connection between Columbia and Hawkins. It is official.
Hawkins psychoanalyst is named Harry Tiebout - see: http://www.myswizard.com/2006/08/21/harry-m-tiebout-md-and-surrender/
Great, thanks for that information. (Do you want to add that to the article? I would like to see it in there.)
it is a non verified information. i doubt who was hawkins first psychoanalyst. i guess this was oversey. i know it was a freudian atheist like himself. and tiebout does not appear to be an atheist. he is into conversion. and he was in hawkins and AAs support system (at a later time).
I do not know what the connection between Oversey and Hawkins is then. Why don't you contact Hawkins' office? I don't have time right now to do so.
again, you started this project - i did not doubt hawkins claims in the first place. the article can wait for your input.
Aal: I just recieved a response from the APA: Thank you for your recent inquiry to the American Psychiatric Association. Yes, we can verify that Dr. David R. Hawkins is a Distinguished Life Fellow of the APA.
Fine. Aal. and was there any problem? not that i know of. i have already provided a ref of APA confirming that - there was a difference of years 2004 vs. 2006. see article and Hawkins info website.
I didn't realize there was a difference in years. I noticed that you provided information confirming this after I contacted the APA. I was just contacting several of the sources from Hawkins' site. I still find it nice to have it doubly confirmed.
i noticed by now that hawkins is not keen on exact numbers - also the way he reports on his life. i.e.: 7 years of private seclusion and then 10-12 years of perfecting himself in silence in an offworldly manner.
or: his first awakening with 3 or 4. if you'd asked me when i spoke my first word i could not tell you that. i would guess.
Aal: A lot of this stuff is hard to track down.
what makes you to take up all that bother, which brings about some interesting insights - not just about researched subjects also about the researcher.
What does this mean? Is this more ad hominem? Please clarify.
check the page ad hominem yourself. this is psychology. basics. and it applies to anybody who sets out for ...
Aal: For example, as Will Beback also brought up before, who exactly gave him the title of Teacher of Enlightenment in Korea? How can we verify this?
a former assistant of the Dalai Lama (didn't find name mentioned on an quick research), now operating for an (name?) institute in South Korea had invited Hawkins to SK end of last century. he raised quite some interest there - held something like a guru status. this is not what hawkins wanted to support on a regular basis - and so he stopped going there. this is shared by hawkins in the interview (dvd 2002) on his life events. the Korean google machine might know more about this. alas i am not familiar with this language and its hieroglyphs.
Please track down more of this if you can. I recall that he was an assistant to the Dalai Lama now that you mention it. Let's get it tracked down so we can add it to the article.
the he is a she, which i have referenced. see above. and the tracking down - mailing - is your job i guess.
Aal: He states that he presented at the International Conference on Science and Consciousness -- here is the proof (even has a photo I have never seen before): [23].
tks for that.
You're welcome. I appreciate your links as well. You find a lot of stuff!!
yes, and there is also psychology at play.
Aal: This is some very silly stuff. […] conferences on "Shamanism" […] and "Sacred Sexuality"!
Aal, what's your intention in doing so? to verify Hawkins' claims or to make derrogative comments on convention organizers? the latter is theory finding on side tracks, and not part of wiki's policies.
My intention was simply to show the quality of the conference. That's it.
and no mention of all that in the article. your ref is fine. not comment needed. and it is not placed in the article - yet and i guess certainly not by you. is it relevant? he did go to several conferences of that kind. the other one was in tucson 1994 (a biannual one issued by the university there) the first of its kind.
Aal: New Age pseudoscience, rather than the legitimate scientific study of concsiousness (which is a very interesting subject).
which are these articles in wiki on the 'legitimate scientific study of concsiousness' which you contribute to. if that's available why bother with 'new age pseudoscientists'?, who are not to be qualified by the wiki authors opinion but by reliable other sources etc. including their own. rgds --Grazia11 02:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow this last bit. I know that people such as Francis Crick and others consider consciousness a great scientific mystery.
that's true - he was also a presenter in the Tucson consciousness conferences.
I find that interesting. I believe that Hawkins' claims do not adequately account for this phenomenon, and I believe I am in the mainstream regarding this.
and neither your belief nor mainstreams are relevant. only the ones of relevant verifiable sources - suiting to the flow of the article.
By the way, I apologize if my humor was offensive in any way. Let's work together to make a great article. Thanks, --ArtAsLife 05:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
if i'd feel the need to apologize for misbehaving i'd rather remove the cynicism which sheds light on me. i differentiate between humor, irony, sarkasm and cynicism. and i did not intend to comment on any of the unsuitable stuff you might still remove here.
P.S., Please see Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness. Regards, --ArtAsLife 05:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
i'll have a look. thanks. --Grazia11

I had found this out before, but I confirmed it again. Hawkins states that he won the Huxley Award. I am sure this is true without contacting the Huxley Institute for Biosocial Research as it is related to orthomolecular psychiatry, which is not mainstream science. See the history of the institute here: [24] (it is written by Abram Hoffer). There is another award with a similar name, the Thomas Henry Huxley Award, sometimes abbreviated simply as "The Huxley Award" (e.g., when Sally Falk Moore won, headlines referred to the award in this abbreviated fashion [25]). Do I even need to contact them to make absolutely certain that this is not the award Hawkins referenced? No, because it is awarded in the field of zoology. [26]--ArtAsLife 20:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

view this AaL - [27] wonder what is running you to comment so full of disdain. rgds --Grazia11 21:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
G11 wrote, "wonder what is running you to comment so full of disdain."
Reality.
Actually, I had an "integrous" AK team test this, and it turns out my "ego" is running me because I "calibrate" at a mere "121" because I am an Aries so the house of Jupiter is affected by my negative energy. This was further verified by my local psychic, a shaman, and a prophecy made by not only Edgar Cayce, but Nostradamus. I called Sylvia Browne, and she told me to contact John Edward. Guess what? It turns out that in a past life, I had not only an OBE, but also an NDE. But, as my AK team tells me, I dropped precipitously in calibration from 971 to 31 two lifetimes ago because I got the two experiences confused. I mistook my NDE for my OBE - boy did that tweak with my loc! Well, at least that's what the alien from dimension 61Q telepathically tells me...I told all of this to Abram Hoffer, and he put me back on my megavitamin therapy...
The link you provided is simply parroting Hawkins. Note that it states he is knighted by the Danish prince. This has been thoroughly disproved (unless, perhaps this is a giant conspiracy run by low loc egos?). Dead people can't knight people. It is good to see he "co-edited", rather than the usual "co-authored" with Pauling. Perhaps ask Stephen Barrett, M.D. of Quackwatch why he is "so full of disdain." [28]
How many of Hawkins' claims need to be disproved for you to reconsider your blind faith?
But, seriously, you seem to hold a healthy bit of disdain for anything that disagrees with Hawkins (need I quote your own words to you?). Anyway, I see this as a side-track. I think it is best not to get into name-calling. Why don't we stick to the issues and not each other? Thank you, --ArtAsLife 04:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Another point to consider is that the link you provided does not mention his PhD, but only his MD; perhaps with good reason. Note, however, that the article does refer to Hoffer as MD, PhD. Either they did not do enough research on Hawkins, or they were aware of the source of his PhD. Reading the article, it appears that they had an additional source of information besides just Hawkins: Wikipedia. --ArtAsLife 04:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (For example, all that talk about scorpions...) --ArtAsLife 05:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I emailed the author of the article, Andrew W. Saul, and told him about the false information he included regarding Hawkins. Hopefully he will correct the article to relfect accuracy. On a personal note, G11, I am not feeling very unconditionally loved by you. I will pray for you, as I know this means you are below 540. Very few people reach that level, though. Maybe next lifetime. Good luck with that. --ArtAsLife 05:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, I just realized I spoke too soon. We are operating in a different "paradigm" when it comes to Hawkins. A dead prince could have knighted him, perhaps in another dimension, or in a future incarnation, or as a spirit come back from the other side to honor the latest avatar. My low loc got in the way again. Please write whatever fiction you can think of in the article so as not to contradict Hawkins' proposed "Reality" paradigm. (Joking, of course.) Regards, --ArtAsLife 05:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the response from Andrew Saul:
Thank you. I will look into this further, and I appreciate your taking the time to bring it to my attention.
Best wishes,
A. Saul
Andrew W. Saul
Assistant Editor, Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine

[edit] Non-profit source and re-sourcing

Hawkins' site states the "Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research, Inc." is a "501(c)(3) Public Charity" (1983). I researched this, and did not come up with any such name. To "Confirm a 501(c)3 is real" (an external link found on the 501(c) Wikipeda article), visit this IRS site: [29]. --ArtAsLife 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

voila - IRS verification rgds --Grazia11 21:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I see, above is not a dynamic url. this is the result (1 of 16 np-orgs) when one fills in correctly in search function a) the name of the institute, b) the location Sedona and c) the state AZ =
Cancer Prevention and Treatment Research Institute of Arizona Inco Sedona AZ USA 4
Choices Foundation for Health Education & Research Inc. Sedona AZ USA --
Church of the Transformative Trinity Inc. Sedona AZ USA --
Counseling-Learning Institutes Sedona AZ USA --
Dahn Institute Inc. Sedona AZ USA --
Eco Psy Institute Sedona AZ USA 4
Foresight Institute (Until December 2008) Sedona AZ USA --
Friends of the Forest Inc. Sedona AZ USA --
Gardens for Humanity Inc. Sedona AZ USA --
Institute for Ecotourism (Until December 2006) Sedona AZ USA --
Institute for Innovative Education (Until December 2008) Sedona AZ USA --
Sanctuary for Spiritual Growth Sedona AZ USA --
Sedona Performing Arts Guild Sedona AZ USA 5
The Institute for Spiritual Research Inc. W. Sedona AZ USA --
Women for Women Learning Center Inc. (Until December 2006) Sedona AZ USA --
Zaki Gordon Institute for Independent Film Making Sedona AZ USA -- rgds --Grazia11 21:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So is "The Institute for Spiritual Research Inc." the correct name, or is it "The Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research"? -Will Beback 22:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
on a Hawkins DVDs dd 2003 "The Institute for Advanced Theoretical Research Inc." - this was renamed into "The Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research Inc." at a later date. in september 2006 the wiki-article on hawkins mentioned both. dont know who did cut that out. in the year 1983 when the institute was registered it was named The Institute for Spiritual Research Inc. the addition advanced came later. rgds --Grazia11 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a lot of names, but only one is listed as a non-profit. I suggest we change the name to the (apparently) official one. The other groups may be DBAs or other creations. -Will Beback 00:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
no guessing needed: The Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research, Inc. is the official name. 'advanced' was added later. changing back into the 1983 version means to thwart the actual name of the institute. it's the same institute. what does the abbrev DBA mean. rgds --Grazia11 00:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
A "DBA" is a very simple form of business, requiring little more than a business license and a "doing business as" notice in the local newspaper. We have a source for "Institute for Spiritual Research Inc" as an officially-recognized name. Do we have a source for "Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research"? -Will Beback 04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

@WBB, Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research, Inc. is the title of the institute that issues Hawkins audio/video productions. and to name it back to the original name "The Institute for Spiritual Research, Inc." is supporting halftruth, which is not verified by what is. see for example: http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/01413.htm axial publishing is the publisher of Truth vs. Falsehood which was not issued by Veritas Publishing. rgds --Grazia11 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The link provided again is merely using Hawkins as a reference. Who runs Axial? You know they have only published Hawkins' book, that's it. I think we should use the IRS-verified name. If you can provide evidence of a legitimate name change, not just calling it something different, then please bring it up. We are interested in accuracy, not just repeating what Hawkins is saying. I suggest we change it back, but will wait to see if Will Beback also agrees, or evidence is provided by G11. Thanks, --ArtAsLife 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Aal, what/who are reliable sources for you. quackwatchers, debunkers, who copy each others sloppily sourced claims? witnessing your biased actions on the D. Hawkins article which has to abide to the wiki instructions on living persons i see that you are not interested in representing the lemma thoroughly/accurately but in misconstruing it to a certain extent (which is not in congruence with the wiki intentions).
hawkins himself names the ACTUAL name of his institute on his own page davidhawkins.info -- and all his visual media are issued by the Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research and sold by Veritas Publishing. how come that one would dismiss such a load of evidence as 'not verifiable'?
the IRS link showed it is non-profit. qed. - names can be changed in time.
http://www.atlasbooks.com/atlasdistribution/publishers.htm axial pub is a book manufacturer.
http://www.nightingale.com/truth_falsehood.asp nightingale is a manufacturer of audios/videos/dvds. both do refer to Hawkins institute name. both are not fervent believers of hawkins teachings, same as Saul the author of the OM site. but what do i know? is the only reliable source is the IRS, which acc to AaL's original non-research had no ref whatsoever of this institute. rgds --Grazia11 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC) rgds --Grazia11 16:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

G11 writes, "Aal, what/who are reliable sources for you. quackwatchers, debunkers, who copy each others sloppily sourced claims?"
Hawkins' CPU transcripts, the San Francisco Theological Seminary, the Deputy Private Secretary to Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark, the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research, the APA, etc. I simply looked at all the sources I have put on this page so far. Of course I also recognize Dr. Robert Todd Carroll, a philosophy professor, and Stephen Barrett, M.D., the National Library of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, science, double-blind studies, reason and factual information and research.
G11 also writes, "witnessing your biased actions on the D. Hawkins article..." Please indicate examples of this. I put up some links on the article that I was unaware were not allowed. They were removed, and I have not added them back. If there is some other bias you have determined on my part in the article, please point it out to me so I can correct this. I have nothing but interest in providing accurate information. I wrote some relevant jokes on the discussion page, but did not put this in the article.
G11 further wrote, "i see that you are not interested in representing the lemma thoroughly/accurately but in misconstruing it to a certain extent (which is not in congruence with the wiki intentions)." I am not sure what this means, but view it as quite rude to challenge my integrity in editing this article. You sound an awful lot like the last fundamentalist who mosied on through. With a lack of rational critique of information, you turn it to me (see ad hominem).
G11 writes, "hawkins himself names the ACTUAL name of his institute on his own page davidhawkins.info" Hawkins also wrote the ACTUAL name of the dead prince who knighted him, the incorrect name of SFTS, a statement which has been removed ("knighted by the Danish Crown"), falsely states to have trained at Columbia, does not mention CPU, Medical College of Wisconsin, Marquette U, who gave him the Enlightenment Teacher title, and many other claims. We have only scratched the surface. Though it is really unneccesary to go beyond CPU and the phony knighthood; on his site he calls himself, "Sir David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D." -- even his name is a lie. Why do you rely soley on information provided by a person who consistently either lies, distorts or withholds information? Clearly this is not in keeping with Wikipedia standards.
G11: "how come that one would dismiss such a load of evidence as 'not verifiable'?" Because he has given much incorrect information already, and the IRS site gives the correct name. You prefer Wikipedia relies on a man's information that is consistently false over the IRS site? Are you joking?
G11, "the IRS link showed it is non-profit. qed. - names can be changed in time." Of course. But we are interested in accurate information as we want Wikipedia to demonstrate a high standard of excellence. If we can verify this, of course we can put up the proper name. I sincerely believe, and I think Will Beback will back me up (no pun intended, lol), that Hawkins should not be considered a source of information at all, or at least with much caution and additional sources of verification. Hawkins has provided substantial false information. G11, do you agree this is the case, or does your blind faith see no error on your side?
G11, "is the only reliable source is the IRS, which acc to AaL's original non-research had no ref whatsoever of this institute." I believe the IRS is a reliable source. It is clear the others mentioned are relying on Hawkins' information. Are you seriously suggesting that commercial enterprises are better sources of information than the IRS? My "original non-research" was due to the fact that the institute has a different name on the IRS site. No wonder I couldn't find it. And I provided the link so another person could look further, which you did. That is great. I wish you could understand that I have no interest in this article other than the truth. It does not concern me that you found the name, as this is the truth. Every step toward making this article as honest as possible I am in favor of. Is this the case for you, G11? Regards, --ArtAsLife 17:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

@Aal - If there is some other bias you have determined on my part in the article, please point it out to me so I can correct this.

this i have thourougly done. see above.

I have nothing but interest in providing accurate information.

hmm (3rd promise of this kind. we'll see.)

I wrote some relevant jokes on the discussion page, but did not put this in the article.

you did apologize for and leave your 'relevant jokes'. incongruent again.

view it as quite rude to challenge my integrity in editing this article.

yes, it is at stake. and Socrates stated that humans will always intend their very best from their perspective. see also quote of H. Maturana.

Hawkins also wrote the ACTUAL name of the dead prince who knighted him

hawkins office - i guess - has corrected that misnomer.

the incorrect name of SFTS

more homework to do on Hawkins side.

a statement which has been removed ("knighted by the Danish Crown")

done deal.

falsely states to have trained at Columbia

pending case. no outspoken claim of this kind on Hawkins' side.

does not mention CPU

...and many other things as well. is anybody obliged to mention it? it is most likely mentioned on his doctoral thesis availed to the public. (i have not seen it.)

Medical College of Wisconsin

this is mentioned here: http://davidhawkins.info/about.htm

Marquette U

this is confirmed by himself in the first 10 minutes of Advanced States of Consciousness: The Realization of the Presence of God Volume III, David R. Hawkins interviews by Yun Kyung Huh, DVD 1 of 2, 2002 -- and before that he had started his studies in Teacher's College (at least that's how I understood it.)

who gave him the Enlightenment Teacher title

yes who. - you have rcvd name adress tel. and fax no. of Ms Moon. go ahead and find out, if you like to know or ask Hawkins office.

"Sir David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D." -- even his name is a lie.

i'm speechless. judging is up to ... btw, Hawkins laughs at his sir title and jokes about the Dr. Dr.. (2 visual sources for that at hand.)

Why do you rely soley on information provided by a person who consistently either lies, distorts or withholds information?

i am not obliged to answer personal questions and i detest undifferentiated questions. so much for that.
Barrett (CSICOP) and Carroll are just not the sources i like to entertain. i'd rather have an awowed atheist pray for me. i'm referring to the Carroll's scorn in NL #58: If, after reading both articles you are still convinced that applied kinesiology is a science, then you are beyond redemption but I'll pray for you anyway.
i guess this is one of them 'relevant jokes'. :)

Clearly this is not in keeping with Wikipedia standards.

yes sir, agreed. relying on one human source only is truly not keeping wiki standards. that is why i brought a bunch of other sources into the article.

You prefer Wikipedia relies on a man's information that is consistently false over the IRS site?

i prefer to follow my inner guidance - and to abide with reliable references to be provided here.

But we are interested in accurate information as we want Wikipedia to demonstrate a high standard of excellence.

yes, that is what we want - in best case. however, it is not on wiki to judge truth, just verifiability.

If we can verify this, of course we can put up the proper name.

this is settled for now. as far as i know.

I sincerely believe […] that Hawkins should not be considered a source of information at all

nice try, Aal. pls read the template on top of this page again.

additional sources of verification.

then go ahead and get them. your project.

Hawkins has provided substantial false information. G11, do you agree this is the case, or does your blind faith see no error on your side?

Hawkins (and/or his office/webmaster) has shown that he is human. so are you, so am i. and humans err. and error(s) can be corrected. and i formally object your judgement about my kind of faith.

I believe the IRS is a reliable source.

yes - back in 1983 - one of several reliable sources to be considered.

I provided the link so another person could look further, which you did. That is great.

i have other sources as well. the nice thing about math is that you may go several routes to get the same result.

Every step toward making this article as honest as possible I am in favor of. Is this the case for you, G11?

definitely, sir Aal (unknighted i guess).

--Grazia11 02:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tucson conference

G11, please provide information on Tucson and other conferences mentioned. Regards, --ArtAsLife 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

this is a list of conferences where David R. Hawkins took part in. that's what i've found: First International Conference on Consciousness and Addiction with Dr. Willis Harman (President of the Institute of Noetic Sciences). Date? Video/DVD available at Veritas publishing

"TOWARD A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS" The University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona, April 12 - 17, 1994 * Center of Consciousness studies (no link at hand)

"AWAKENED WORLD 2004/ Humankindness Overflowing:Path of True Power" AGNT Sponsored by: AGNT - All recordings from the 2004 conference: http://www.conferencerecording.com/aaaListTapes.asp?CID=AWA24

The Global Forum for the Art and Science of Coaching Quebec City 4-6 November 2004 http://www.coachfederation.org/2004proceedings/icf_data/pages/about_icf/book_list5-small.htm

http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v405/__cat/_c4856/_p3/ CONSCIOUSNESS EXPANSION 9 Apr 2005 Bryce and Lisa Jackson greetz --Grazia11

Right, this was my point. Of course he was at the other ones, I am sure. But a long time ago I researched the Tucson conference, and all of the presenters, and Hawkins was not one of them. In my opinion and apparently fact, Hawkins would have never have presented at a conference where Crick was also a presenter. The point indicates the type and quality of the conference, and thus is relevant. --ArtAsLife 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawkins' AK version - no claim to be classical science (cont'd)

only the Truth can prove itself. What gives(Hawkins') AK validity is not a scientific explaination, but rather, the value of the information itself that he has arrived at. When the information is evaluated independently of its source(AK), it paints an intricate web which internally verifies its own contents. For example: If a psychic channelled a message from 'beyond' that was something of a mathematical formula, and if a scientist wrote the same formula, in either case, if the contents of the formula are sound, then at least in this one case the source has been trustworthy. In the case of Hawkins and his AK, despite the fact that his 'magic' is not explainable in scientific terms, it IS however verifiable by the consistency of its contents(even if there are a few exceptions to this, they appear to be explainable in most cases when Hawkins is confronted with the discrepancy) -Rob Slanina r_slanina@hotmail.com 8:49am, 30 October 2006(PST)

"only the Truth can prove itself." What does this mean?
"What gives(Hawkins') AK validity is not a scientific explaination..." This contradicts Hawkins' own claims (especially in Power vs. Force, not to mention his web sites).
"the value of the information itself that he has arrived at..." This is subjective. I personally find the information itself useless and unenlightened; that is, neither science, nor true spirituality. It is pseudoscience, you state as much without realizing so.
"When the information is evaluated independently of its source(AK), it paints an intricate web which internally verifies its own contents" i.e., it begs the question (circular reasoning).
Your psychic/math example sounds good, but is far from reality. This is not done with AK. In fact, mathematicians and physicists, among others, recognize his work to be pseudoscience.
"despite the fact that his 'magic' is not explainable in scientific terms" Again, this contradicts Hawkins' statements. He stated it is science, and it is not. Does this not contradict AK since he said he used it on his books to test for truth?
"it IS however verifiable by the consistency of its contents" It is in fact rife with contradictions, and again this begs the question.
"even if there are a few exceptions to this, they appear to be explainable in most cases when Hawkins is confronted with the discrepancy" This is silly. Focus more on falsification (misses) rather than confirmation (hits), and you will find that AK fails miserably. Regards, --ArtAsLife 00:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"only the Truth can prove itself" means that ultimately, something has to be self-evident. Nothing other than the experience of being a cat can verify what it means to be a cat. There's a seeming aversion to reasoning that ends up being circular, which is fair, because circular reasoning hardly constitutes 'proof', and yet, without a degree of circularity, there can be no certainties, because asserting causal relationships(ie: this works because that makes it so) eventually ends up being infinitely regressive(if X makes Y so, then what makes X so? and what makes that so, and that so, ad infinitum).
A scientific perspective does not constitute a scientific explaination. Hawkins is clear in explaining that applied kinesiology calibrates at 600, while doing calibrations with kinesiology calibrates at 610. Science is in the 400s, which means that applied kinesiology just is not going to fit nicely into the scientific paradigm. In lieu of all this however, the mechanisms can still be described and demonstrated in such a way that is accessible to people in the 400s. The information can be expressed in a way that is intellectually sound, even if it is not easily substantiated by formal experimentation(which is not to say that that is not possible, but rather, that it simply is not easy, given A)the propensity of researchers to favour a particular outcome, and B)the numerous factors[known and unknown] which influence the kinesioogic response). As well, it ought to be noted that when Power vs. Force was published, Hawkins was under the assumption that anybody could use the technique, and that only after people began reporting mixed/inconsistent/inaccurate results did Hawkins investigate further to discover the conditional factors which influence one's ability to use the technique. For example, it was discovered that the tester and the test subject themselves must both calibrate above 200 and that the question(statement)/intention itself must calibrate above 200 in order to achieve accurate results.
on the matter of pseudoscience, such an assertion is equally subjective. Consider psychology. Just because the causal mechanisms involved in recovery from mental conditions is not necessarily clear or understood at all in some situations, does not mean that there is no explaination. Listening to Mozart has a measurable effect on people, and yet the effect is not 100% reproduceable, nor is it understood on a strict scientific basis. It would be silly to say that the Mozart effect is not a scientific phenomena. There's simply a need for more research.
In the case of Hawkins, his work is scientific in the sense that he is a researcher. Applied Kinesiology is his instrument for measurement, but not the science that he is investigating itself. He has stated on numerous occasions that he is not a kinesiologist, and that it is simply a tool that can be used.
Like any young science, the science of Consciousness research, or whatever one might want to call it, can not be negated by the absence of satisfactory explaination. By investigating the data that Hawkins has collected, patterns emerge which represent a larger context. The patterns themselves are what is important to the science.
"Does this not contradict AK since he said he used it on his books to test for truth?" Science is not an authority on Truth. Science is an approach to the observation and investigation of Truth. Truth, as it takes shape as the Nature of nature has authority over science, for Truth is responsible for ensuring that daffodils do not grow up into girrafes. Science emerged long after Truth did, and as such, Science is subjet to reality, but that does not in turn mean that reality is subject to science(which is not to say that there is not an already apparent harmony between science and Truth, only that it might be rather pseudoscientific to revere current scientific understandings as being authoritative on the nature of existence. At best they might simply be correct.)
"Focus more on falsification (misses) rather than confirmation (hits), and you will find that AK fails miserably." Or, one could take a broader approach and include hits, misses, false positives, and correct rejections, without any investment in the results supporting a particular hypothesis at all. To focus on one type of result to substantiate the dismissal of the other types of results seems biased and unscientific. If most people die of cancer, and one person spontaneously remisses, one does not dismiss the remission as being insignificant. There is a larger pattern which emerges when one takes into account all varieties of results, and all the factors which contributed to them. -RobSlanina
Hi Rob, "Hawkins is clear in explaining that applied kinesiology calibrates at 600 while doing calibrations with kinesiology calibrates at 610. Science is in the 400s" This begs the question.
should have said 'the current scientific paradigm' is in the 400s. It's important to realize that some things are fluid because they are social institutions, and as such, they are subject to change as society itself changes. For example, early Christianity calibrated in the 900s...while current Christianity calibrates in the high 400s. Christ's teachings have not changed, but the way we understand, interpret and apply them certainly has. We may do well to consider Gallileo, whose work didn't conform to the accepted scientific paradigms of his era...or many of the philosophers who left works to be published only after they died so as not to have to endure persecution for the confrontational nature of their discoveries. Yet, Gallileo's work was still scientific, and the writings of the philosophers was still philosophical, despite the nonconformity with the accepted paradigms of their respective eras.
"[AK] will not fit nicely into the scientific paradigm" Hawkins claims that it does in PvsF. His more recent retractions are ad hoc hypothesis.
ad hoc? it is simply a matter of not having known particular things in advance.
"In lieu of all this however, the mechanisms can still be described and demonstrated in such a way that is accessible to people in the 400s" What happened to anyone being able to do it? Then those above 200? Then only those with a "karmic inheritence" and extra special skill? Now it is only those above 400? Wow.
Accessible to the 400s does not mean that it is exclusive to the 400s. It is presented in such a way that those in the 400s will find most comprehensible. This does not mean that those not in the 400s will find it incomprehensible however. On the matter of "anyone can do it", it is no different than saying "anyone can ride a bicycle". Some people may not get it at first, but the capacity to do so is inherent in just about everyone. Now, conditions such as the need for the question and the intention to calibrate above 200 mean that people below 200 can not get accurate results, because their intentions are not integrous. However, their capacity to use AK is still inherent-they merely have to grow beyond the 200 point on the Map of Consciousness. Basically, the only condition that prevents people from using AK is that AK is used for finding truth, and the interest in genuinely finding truth is not there for people who calibrate below 200. Typically the case may be that their investment in a particular result leads to a self-imposed ideomotor effect.
"The information can be expressed in a way that is intellectually sound, even if it is not easily substantiated by formal experimentation" This statement contradicts itself.
there is a difference between substantiating something and proving something via experimentation. I can explain via the use of logic and reason, why a television show is written well(intellectually sound presentation), though it is impossible to prove that a show is well written (according to formal experimentation).[perhaps not the best example, but the point seems clear enough]
"both calibrate above 200 and that the question(statement)/intention itself must calibrate above 200 in order to achieve accurate results." This is an ad hoc hypothesis used to rescue the pseudoscience from refutation, and thereby destroys its scientific status. Hawkins should be clear in his books, from the word go, that his work is not science, that his PhD is from Columbia Pacific University, that AK is not mainstream science and has been demonstrated in studies to be false, and so on.
why ad hoc and not simply a post-discovery discovery? as well, Hawkins recieved his PhD in 1995-two years before the CPU's authority to issue degrees was officially revoked. He began his program 3 years before CPU was even under review for its standards and practices. This basis for refutation is incredibly weak, and it would appear emotionally driven.
On the matter of being demonstrated in studies as false, please cite sources where the conditions you claim to be 'ad hoc' were accounted for in the studies.
"on the matter of pseudoscience, such an assertion is equally subjective" Double-blind studies are designed to remove subjective bias. Under these conditions it does not work, regardless of your belief.
that a study is double-blind is not an exclusive qualifier for being scientific. Psychologists conduct single-blind studies all the time. On the matter of pseudoscience, the assertion is subjective. It is necessary to provide examples where the supposed 'ad hoc' qualifiers are accounted for in a study(double-blind if you insist). The claim that the work is pseudoscience is based on distrust only.
"It would be silly to say that the Mozart effect is not a scientific phenomena" And yet it has been said: [30].
and yet it is still silly. The Skepdic article doesn't explain how it is not scientific, it simply presents several theories as to why the phenomenon occurs, and several examples of situations where it did not occur. Even if the relationship between Mozart and wellness/intelligence is not causal, there must still be a scientific explaination for the cases where the data is at least corelational.
"In the case of Hawkins, his work is scientific in the sense that he is a researcher" Make up your mind. Is it science, or is it "600" (i.e., belief)?
600 is the beginning of non-duality. The higher levels on the Map of Consciousness are inclusive of all those below. The difference is marked more by a shift/expansion in context. 600 is not opposed to 400. Love is at 500. Love is not unreasonable, though reason is not an appropriate faculty for understanding Love. See? the 500s include the 400s, but are not limited to the 400s.
"He has stated on numerous occasions that he is not a kinesiologist, and that it is simply a tool that can be used." And yet he uses to erroneously purport to give the truth of everyone and everything in the universe. Cleary it is "simply a tool" lol.
"Like any young science, the science of Consciousness research, or whatever one might want to call it, can not be negated by the absence of satisfactory explaination" Indeed. See Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness.
"Science is not an authority on Truth" This contradicts Hawkins. AK is a "science of Truth" according to Hawkins.
Science is defined as a systematic observation, study and analysis of a subject, therefore, a "science of Truth" is dependant upon Truth(the thing that it observes, studies and analyzes), while Truth exists independently of the science and is not subject to it. Even AK is not an authority on Truth, but rather, an approach(science) which can be used to observe, study and analyze Truth.
"To focus on one type of result to substantiate the dismissal of the other types of results seems biased and unscientific. If most people die of cancer, and one person spontaneously remisses, one does not dismiss the remission as being insignificant. There is a larger pattern which emerges when one takes into account all varieties of results, and all the factors which contributed to them." Of course I agree with your example, yet I find it fails as an accurate analogy to AK. If a person uses AK and gets one answer out of ten, then probability, pure chance, accounts for the hit. Indeed, double-blind studies confirm this and state that AK is "not more useful than random guessing." Science is always open to change. AK is blind faith. Regards, --ArtAsLife 06:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
firstly, probability is a poor qualifier for anything. 1 out of 10 might be followed by a string of 1000 out of 1000 hits. It is hardly scientific to dismiss something based on chance. Secondly, did the double-blinds account for the 'ad hoc' qualifiers? -Rob

"It's important to realize that some things are fluid" Hawkins use of AK implies a required and impossible ontological shift in reality itself, not a scientific shift of paradigm as our understanding of the universe evolves. "We may do well to consider Gallileo" His work was out of the church and dogma, and into science and reality. Hawkins' work is out of science, and back into dogma. Because Hawkins' work is new and confrontational does not mean that it is correct; i.e., bold statements do not make claims true (see Michael Shermer). I think a better analogy is with Newton. Newton was one of the greatest minds of all time, yet was very interested in alchemy. Perhaps Hawkins is a good psychiatrist or spiritual teacher, but AK would still not be true; as with Newton, he was a genius, but incorrect about alchemy. "Nonconformity" gives pseudoscience an appeal, but most of the time it is still incorrect. To me science itself is nonconformist, as it believes in not having authorities and is democratic. Hawkins' work is authoritarian (he is the final judge on all truth in the universe), and leads to conformity of his beliefs/calibrations in his readers. "It is presented in such a way that those in the 400s will find most comprehensible" If 400's means intelligent, I disagree. You are still engaging in circular reasoning, and assuming all of Hawkins' work to be true. Meanwhile, studies, etc., indicate the opposite. Your tv example wasn't very good, you're right. This is because if a show is written well can be interpreted as being subjective. Hawkins is making objective claims that are not true. A better example is with astrology, an entire system of nonsense. This is the case for Hawkins' system, too, I believe, and the facts bear this out. "why ad hoc and not simply a post-discovery discovery?" It contradicts his book and dissertation. The basis of his "PhD" would be changed. It is an ad hoc hypothesis. Try this article: [31]. See also: [32]. "Hawkins recieved his PhD in 1995-two years before the CPU's authority to issue degrees was officially revoked. He began his program 3 years before CPU was even under review for its standards and practices. This basis for refutation is incredibly weak, and it would appear emotionally driven." See Columbia Pacific University and associated links. The Associated Press reported that the school had been trying to be shut down from the beginning and had "virtually no academic standards." This has been gone over many times, just check out the article and links. It is strange that you would refer to this as "emotionally driven." I would suggest believing AK to be true is "emotionally driven" in light of the facts. For the studies, please see: [33]. "On the matter of pseudoscience, the assertion is subjective" This statement is not true. Science is objective. "1 out of 10 might be followed by a string of 1000 out of 1000 hits." This is not the case for AK in actual practice. "Secondly, did the double-blinds account for the 'ad hoc' qualifiers?" See the available studies, check out the links on ad hoc, and use reason. Please email me if you want to dialogue anymore on this: art_as_life@yahoo.com . This is taking up too much time and is irrelevant to this talk page. Regards, --ArtAsLife 19:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)



@discussion - i've taken the liberty to remove this cont discussion into the visible domain. page 2 - here:

this is what Hawkins has to say about his Ph.D. and his relation to academic science.

"The basic work out of which »Power vs. Force« came, was a dissertation presented to the university and well received by the University faculty called »Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis and Calibrations of the Level of Human Consciousness«. […] That was a highly scientific dissertation in which we used traditional acadamic standards of advanced statistical analysis. In fact I hired a statistical analysis firm. They took all the data and run it through the computers. It came out P was less than 0.001. The chances of findings of being in error were less than 1 of 100.000 or something [...]. It's based on […] proving and disproving the null hypothesis with the valid data. It met academic standards or else i would not have gotten a Ph.D. for it. Im a clinician, rather than an academic. I am not an academic person at all. […] Spiritually i am called a mystic."
source: D. R. Hawkins, »Consciousness: How to Tell the Truth About Anything« Vol. IV, lecture on DVD/video l of 2, min 1:07:25-109

rgds --Grazia11

"I am not an academic person at all." -Hawkins. I calibrate this statement at 50,000,000. ArtAsLife 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

i've been ifmd about wiki talk page rules by WBB. "Do not edit other user's comments." is one of the rules. i wonder what happens with rightout slander (on the subject/lemma or related parts/persons/coauthors), which is negated as such by the author. who is going to remove them - on what basis?
so, i was willing to restore this removed remark of AaL, when i found out that WBB had taken care of to restore a mere nonsense remark himself. and i see a double standard applied here. further up on the page i was taught by WBB that wiki does not concur with calibrations of sorts. above comment of Art is of no informative value - and not discussion on the article, rather it is a personal comment (off any known calibration frame). sorry, for not being aware of wiki rules (one of the many) and i bet there is another one to cancel out this. --Grazia11
Please see WP:BLP. Unsourced defamatory remarks, either in articles or talk pages, can and should be removed. I said that "Unlike some other wikis, En.Wikipedia does not rely on LoC tests. Rather we rely on WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS", I didn't say that calibrations can't be mentioned. Yes, there are many Wikipedia rules. -Will Beback 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
@WBB - "Unsourced defamatory remarks, either in articles or talk pages, can and should be removed." - aha, to me this above restored piece was such a remark: unsourced and with a subtle defamatory slant.
I said that "Unlike some other wikis, En.Wikipedia does not rely on LoC tests. Rather we rely on WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS", I didn't say that calibrations can't be mentioned.
as long as they relate to the subject 1st or 2nd source and do relate to the discussion i think as well that mentioning them is fine.
Yes, there are many Wikipedia rules. - and few who know them all and fewer to apply them all, and fewest who know to weigh which of the many rules to a specific situation. rgds --Grazia11
I don't understand. Why is "I calibrate this statement at 50,000,000." defamatory? It appears to me that the user is saying he agrees with a quotation from the subject. -Will Beback 02:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wbb. it seems to me that you are not aware about basics. the max in Hawkins' scale is 1,000 under earthly conditions. 50 mio is off scale. and figures like this are not basis for any sensible discussion. rgds --Grazia11 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me similar to saying "I agree 110%". I don't see anything defamatory about it. -Will Beback · † · 22:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
this conversation is pretty silly. if you see the ratio of 1,000 and 50 mio on a logarhithmic procession the math is not 110%. it's way over that. it's like: true, truer, truest, the most truest, the utmost truest ... etc. it's a nonsensisical statement and you are it's defender. that may be the actual dilemma here - in my view. q.e.d. --Grazia11
I still don't see what's defamatory about it. -Will Beback · † · 22:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Will, i see that you don't (want to) see it. the sentence in question is 'unsourced' in that way that it is not based on the scale at hand - and calibrations in general, if not the ones of the subject/lemma are of doubtful character, i.e. no means of verification. the figure can be seen as subtly defamatory by those who have eyes to see. most of all it is nonsense and a transgression of AaL's repeated promises of wanting to contribute from here on strictly in a constructive manner acc. wiki rules (which he is mostly not aware of and has mostly not been made aware of before i arrived here).

personal value judgements of the kind: 'yes, yesser, the yessest, very yessest ...' are what? wiki authors are neither to agree or not to agree with the subject, they are here to describe it to the best of their abilities. and in fact they do (have to) judge the verifiability (not the truth) and the slantedness of sources (at times). rgds --Grazia11 07:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debating Wiki standards

The inserted informations of J. Reams (he did not allow his private calibrations to be published as source material - was strictly against AaL's original transgression of the privacy of correspondence and had him correct it) are 'unsourced' the same way than Hawkins' letter or the letter of the danish crown or the APA for that matter. it's a matter of: who and which (here self referenced) sources, do you want to believe or not, what do you want to see or not, and how do act from there? by double standards or one standard? Will, you have removed sources here which do meet the requested wiki standards as 'unreliable' just by your very own judgement - and you have allowed several sources in the article which do not meet the wiki standards. how that?

the question is still on the table: may a subject in his chosen way call on wiki authors not to use a certain type of critic as a source (here: the outright atheist Carroll, scorning spiritual matters) in an article on him. still waiting for a reply to questions related to this i'd asked to you a month ago or so which you had put on hold since then. rgds --Grazia11 07:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're raising a whole bunch of different issues here. First, I'd say the defamation is much too subtle to be concerned about. Judging by the interviews I've heard, Hawkins has anough of a sense of humor that it's just the kind of joke he'd make. Regardless, the phrase is not defamatory in any normal sense of the word.
I haven't really been following the Reams matter. However if some of it is based on personal correspondence than that is inappropriate and the material should be re-sourced or removed.
the question is still on the table: may a subject in his chosen way call on wiki authors not to use a certain type of critic as a source (here: the outrhight atheist Carroll, scorning spiritual matters) in an article on him.
I'm not sure I understand this question. We can't choose which people are allowed to criticize us. -Will Beback · † · 07:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

@wbb - Judging by the interviews I've heard, Hawkins has anough of a sense of humor that it's just the kind of joke he'd make. Regardless, the phrase is not defamatory in any normal sense of the word. - hawkins jokes (however never with calibrated figures), Carroll writes 'legitimate jokes' to embellish sarcasm. and do you remember the scandal in denmark, when a danish newspaper "joked" on islam, mohammed. the west had no idea how much 'legitimate jokes' may stir up international conflicts.

I haven't really been following the Reams matter. However if some of it is based on personal correspondence than that is inappropriate and the material should be re-sourced or removed.

AaL took care to remove all those infos (includings personal calibrations revealed in a private email exchange) which he had placed here without permission, which were not in congruence with the privacy of correspondence overriding wiki policy. Reams has no objections to that what is written now in wiki on the talk page and in the article. it is well sourced.

however, reams did inform on the status of CPU and the fact, that Hawkins' dissertation would have been accepted on many other accredited universities, which CPU was at the time. it would not fulfill the standards of elite universities like harvard which insist on double blind studies as well. this information (serving the cause and discussion here) has been withheld by AaL.

the question is still on the table: may a subject in his chosen way call on wiki authors not to use a certain type of critic as a source (here: the outrhight atheist Carroll, scorning spiritual matters) in an article on him.
I'm not sure I understand this question. We can't choose which people are allowed to criticize us.

it is not about 'we'. wiki authors are not subjects of wiki articles. this is an article on a living person. hawkins inserted letter (which you deem of an unidentified source) is not treated the same way than the inserted infos derived via (e)mail exchange from different sources. again: Given a living person (clearly identified) is formally objecting a certain kind of critic as not being an adequate source of critique. how does wiki go about in such cases. any regulations? any prototypes? rgds --Grazia11

What information is sourced from emails? -Will Beback · † · 00:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Will, i start to wonder how deeply you are interested in the subject of this discussion itself. on page 1 one user launched a letter of Hawkins (mail copied). then onwards AaL and ? and me contributed data from email and/or mail exchange to the talk page. you yourself took the effort to mail to Hawkins' office - and apparently haven't received an answer to reconfirm the origin of the Hawkins'/somebody letter. the other mail partners were already named. check along 'email' or so: rep. of danish crown, columbia university, J. Reams, Ausschuss für die Johanniter-Orden, APA, and Ms. Moon, Seoul. rgds --Grazia11 00:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Not that the subject isn't interesting or notable. It's just that with so many Wikipedia article requiring attention I've never been able to give this article my undivided interest. In fact, I'm barely interested in this topic at all. I try to pay as little attention as possible to it. I've never sent an email to Hawkins nor have I received one. -Will Beback · † · 10:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anesthesia

  • He underwent several surgeries without accepting anesthesia, riding consciously before the wave of pain. Only in one occasion it failed, leaving him with massive pain related to a karmic issue which he became aware of in the midst of it.

This is an exceptional claim and I think it requires careful sourcing. What surgeries are we talking about? I'm not sure that the subject's own assertions in this matter would be sufficient. -Will Beback · † · 20:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

hi wbb, the source is BtO webradio, not so long ago I heard that. i did not note it though. I know of Cher, who did have surgery w/out anesthesia. she did not ride the pain. has a crew of spriritual healers

around to keep her mostly in semi-unaware state. Hawkins does not say when, where, how often exactly. name all the witnesses. he is an extra-ordinary person, so he does extraordinary things. i'll get the source for this claim of his one of these days. rgds --Grazia11

Thanks. Let's remoev it until we can find more information. -Will Beback · † · 22:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be enough to mark it with citation needed. another source where he talks about it too is the CD series (6) the Highest Level of Enlightenment. --Grazia11 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's too exceptional a claim to leave in without careful sourcing or a thorough re-write. -Will Beback · † · 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linear vs Nonlinear

Dr. Hawkins uses the terms linear and nonlinear in a very specific context in his works. This context does not necessarily match the "usual" definitions of the words in math or science. His usage of the terms is very consistent throughout his work. (more to follow)

I shall endeavor to clarify the meaning of the following terms, in the context of the work of Dr. Hawkins:

1. Linear 2. Nonlinear 3. Attractor 4. Critical point


Bzzt 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert policies (using POV as an explanation)

due to surgery and the recent death of my father i am not available for the time being re changes and lengthy discussions thereof.

WBB - you have admitted to be unfamiliar with the subject. however you revert changes (including many style changes for the betterment of the article) grandiosly instead of editing the respective parts, improving them or tagging them with citation claims. and you explain this rabiat act as 'removal of POV' - after having experienced your company and AaL's i feel more experienced to argue ref. to wiki style than the 2 new users LilaDonovan and Sunnymae1. Have they been greeted yet? how is it done properly?

amazingly you did not have any complaints re the unneccessary negative slant of LilaDonovan's undiscussed changes, wherein he/she removed SOURCES in quite an impudent manner (in my view). Sunnymae1 on the other hand did improve the language of the article (not completely though) and added some unsourced stuff. the removal of sources was on CPU (reiterated text of its downfall after Hawkins Ph.D.) - this was more or less copied from the entry on CPU and not neccessary. furthermore it was the removal of 1-person-website sources.

your revert action of Nov 30 seems to me POV-ridden, especially in view of your bias re the actions of these 2 new users.

regarding Todd Carroll. pls read what user BostonMA brought up on the page "The sceptic's dictionary". he doubts to use it as a reliable Source for Wikipedia articles altogether.

"Editors are urged to use caution with regards to the use of The Skeptic's Dictionary as a source of information for Wikipedia articles. In this Wikipedian's humble opinion, The Skeptic's Dictionary contains numerous assertions which are not supported by references or citations, and which, in this Wikipedian's opinion are not supported by a consensus of researchers in the fields to which the topics belong. Better sources exist for almost all topics for which one might be tempted to use The Skeptic's Dictionary. If better sources cannot be found, the assertions made in this work should, in this Wikipedian's opinion, be treated as dubious." --User:BostonMA 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding your confirmation in october to having mailed to hawkins office (to verify him as the author of the "selfreferenced" letter on talk page 1 in response to T. Carroll), which you have denied to have done so a month later. before that you said: no answer yet. is this behavior of yours trustworthy?

liladonovan's info (after corresponding with Hawkins assistant) came true, meanwhile Hawkins add-on page (since end of Nov) http://davidhawkins.info/skeptic.htm refers to Carroll and other skeptics and critics and also to (t)his wiki entry on himself. i'd be happy to receive more concrete hints as to where the wiki article is incongruent with the actual state of affairs and is lacking truth (which i am aware is not in wiki's intent though, it is just based on reliable verifiability). hawkins does not elaborate much on grave mistakes of the wiki article. the few he mentions I'll have a look with what is written so far.

regarding 1 person websites: you stated above that they are not reliable sources acc to wiki standards. however: you did and do not hasten to remove any of the growing! 1 person issued websites (mostly on the critics section - critics who apparently have never bothered to read or listen extensively to hawkins' material) instead rather relying on input of critical individuals.

regarding improving the article's language: since weeks you did not endeavor in that work, Sunnymae1 finally did so (just to have these changes reverted altogether). it's contraproductive.

having read the hints on entries on living persons i understand that the story on this person is to represent their take of things. "Hawkins states..." vs. "Hawkins claims" to me (as a foreigner) the 1st sounds ok (as to represent the subject), the 2nd is slanted implying "that can't be." such details count as well -re POV. criticism has to be reliable and sourced. the critics as well as some propenents of hawkins are the webmasters of their own webpage = irrelevant (-> unreliable sources). all over wiki such irrelevant sources including Todd Carroll's website are being inserted, just for the sake of their handy availability. who would ever take care to removing all of them in order to abide the sensible? rules? funny enough WBB you took care to remove a source which did fulfill wiki standards after all, this was removal of a reliable source after all.

according to hawkins his critics (so far mentioned in wiki) and the one's on AK are biassed and not meeting his set standard of integrity, qualifiying them as a critic on even basis. and apparently they do also not even meet wiki's standards of reliability).

some of my general questions to you (such as 'how to deal with critics on living persons who clearly state that they are not apt to referentially criticize their work) are still pending. where is the suitable place to discuss general wiki policies on this matter?

looking forward to your response. i will go over this yet unfinished article thoroughly once again (after recovery), if you have not come up with a suitable discussion and possible changes with both the newcomers yet instead. grand reverts with no improvement, fact-tagging and discussion instead is just meagre style and not wiki standard (at least in germany). however, i have witnessed it is done here and there, and often by admins and (POV-ridden?) editors. greetings --Grazia11 16:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry to hear of the death of your father and I hope you recover from your surgery soon.
Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. So if someone comes along and changes the name of a ex-wife from Jane to Sally, with no explanation or reference, after that has been in the article for over a year, then that's an unjustifed edit. If we can have a source which shows it's one instead of the other then making the change is fine.
Criticism has to be sourced, meaning we can't make it up ourselves. (Ditto with rebuttals to criticism). But we don't require that the critics source their criticisms.
I've never received any correspondence from Hawkins or his office, nor have I ever mailed anything to them. My Wikipedia page has an email link that anyone can use to contact me.
LilliDonovan explained every edit, and the explanations seemed reasonable.
The Skeptics Dictionary is a notable source, but it should only be used with attribution.
Yes, "claims" is a word to be avoided. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid.
Every policy and guideline has a talk page. For example, if you want to talk about reliable sourcs then you can go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. -Will Beback · † · 20:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, while Sunnymae1 made too many changes without any disucssion or references, there were some good edits in there. I'll try to sift through them tonight and restore the non-controversial ones. -Will Beback · † · 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
hi WBB,
Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. So if someone comes along and changes the name of a ex-wife from Jane to Sally, with no explanation or reference, after that has been in the article for over a year, then that's an unjustifed edit. If we can have a source which shows it's one instead of the other then making the change is fine.
fair enough and agreed. i appreciate this kind of policy. what about Jane never being verified as Tarzan's wife, the only verification is wiki selfreferencing (not being challenged for a year or so).
in such a case (both names not being verified) - would you revert to the 1st non-verified entry or would you prefer to switch to wife without naming her at all any more in the wiki article, instead putting brackets on the 2nd mentioned name asking for a citation first? this is how i would do it. this i'd consider as an improvement for the sake of the quality of the article. or else i would check myself for sources on both names - and maybe i'd find none or both of them verified, as the first and the second wife (or so).
Criticism has to be sourced, meaning we can't make it up ourselves. (Ditto with rebuttals to criticism). But we don't require that the critics source their criticisms.
hmm, wiki requires reliability of sources (links). so, any slanderer calling himself let's say guru rater or cult watcher (or so) is a verifiable, however, not yet a reliable source. and 1-(wo)man shows are deemed as non-reliable. there was a third pillar to consider, have not on my mind.
I've never received any correspondence from Hawkins or his office, nor have I ever mailed anything to them. My Wikipedia page has an email link that anyone can use to contact me.
now i get it. this i have misunderstood you in this point right from the beginning. and you did not take care to clarify this matter right from the beginning. WBB, i do also have an email address in wiki. hawkins did not choose to register in wiki and correct his entry himself nor to mail me or you. he did mail/forward his statement on Carroll to the ID-user (see talk page 1) on behalf of the wiki-entry - and that is just the same as when he'd mailed it to you or me. user with ID had the verification, not so you or me or X. i'd took Hawkins letter as a verified source, not so you. any mail message to you such things happen though with entries of living persons - filled with grave and reliably verified mistakes. such living persons do then get in trouble with older wiki authors rebuking them even for vandalism (or so) or for not sourcing their changes. the living person, i.e. the wiki subject (lemma) is the living source him/herself. it's rather grave that any living person is literally forced (by wiki standards) to produce some weblinks somewhere (best not on his own page, and not on a private page) to 'verify' his/her life stations, in order not to be rebuked/reverted re adding unsourced material. this is a real di-lemma of the actual wiki.
LilliDonovan explained every edit, and the explanations seemed reasonable.
my goodness, it's so easy to convince a biassed reader, who is hardly interested in the subject itself nor in the course of the discussion.
LD did not take care of reading the discussion page and reverted entries back to the pre-grazia times not taking into account lenghty discussions on the matters. (see the example above, unsourced and never verified names, once challenged, are taken as unspoken 'true' standard instead of being reconsidered altogether.
LD removed 1-3 SOURCED entries including the maticulously inserted refs. what was said therein, did not fit into his picture apparently. - LD added slanted language like "claims to" with no need nor explanation to do so in the reporting (not in the critics) section, thus adding bias to the article. this meant a quality loss, not abiding to the rules on living persons entries.
LD added 1-2 'unreliable' sources under weblinks. not inserting them in the text.
The Skeptics Dictionary is a notable source, but it should only be used with attribution.
pls explain per example what you mean with "attribution" in Carroll's case or a similar case. Carroll is a 1-man-show. is he/his site reliable acc. wiki standards?
Yes, "claims" is a word to be avoided. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid.
tks for that. just what was needed.
Every policy and guideline has a talk page. For example, if you want to talk about reliable sourcs then you can go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources.
right now i am not into policy creating/changing on the english wikipedia. i ask you again and again about the precedent set by hawkins. a subject (aka living person) says: no such critics as flws are wished by him as 'reliable' sources in his entry in wiki.
"primary reason for disagreement. Criticisms come from (1) atheists, (2) political bias, (3) people who calibrate below 200, (4) people who are upset by findings, and (5) relativists who reject the confirmable Reality of Absolutism. Note that skepticism, relativism, and cynicism all calibrate far below the critical level of 200. In contrast, Absolutism calibrates at 650, and the reality of the Absolute itself calibrates at 1,000." source: http://davidhawkins.info/skeptic.htm

check the critic section of the entry, made up of single webmasters of the cats 1, 2, 3, 4?, and 5. other kinds of critics (not 1 man/woman shows) could be acceptable for Hawkins.

if such a precedence re fair critical sources has not been set before, i guess there is no policy in wiki to be found on it. if not, pls tell me which page would relate to the settling of this case.
Also, while Sunnymae1 made too many changes without any disucssion or references, there were some good edits in there.
Sunnymae1 is a newcomer. you've first reverted her changes and then formally greeted and informed the user about some 'how to dos'. such a welcome for newcomers seem to me like a cold shower. not that i am used to a more diligent first call than that. received neither one of these official stamps - not in the German nor in the English wiki. instead of that i was instructed by AaL pretty early what to do on the german entry of Hawkins (to bolster up skeptic postions).
funny enough, LilaDonovan received quite a nice welcome stamp BEFORE he/she started to contribute. wonder how this is possible - after all by some user who did never contribute in the Hawkins entry.
I'll try to sift through them tonight and restore the non-controversial ones.
this is a word and work. i appreciate this. and you'll find out, that most of SM1's changes are style improvements. except “..." (this is a consistent incongruency with LD's changes.) i do not understand the logic of the english style rules on marking in "...". the way LD's has changed them is right out off the mark acc to german style rules and even acc to the ones i've read in your suggested style page. mostly in the end LD started to state unsourced material. however, much of it can be found on different sources - some of it on Hawkins new add-on page on criticism. it took me a while to learn how to reference properly. some oldies in wiki still do not care about that.
yes, LD did not explain his/her content changes clearly on the summary line. did I? not at all. it took me a while until i had learned to do so here - tks to your repeated reminders, WBB. however, you did not "dare" then to revert my changes altogether.
greets, --Grazia11
That's a long reply. I'll see if I can answer most of it.
Using a source with attribution means that if Source X says that Y=yes, then we would write, "According to X, Y=yes". That's as opposed to simply saying, "Y-yes".
Please don't accuse me of being biased. I've never made any personal remark about your interest in this article.
Hawkins may not like his critics: most folks don't like those who criticize them. We can include some summary of what his website says (though I note that the text is unsigned - do we know who wrote it?).
The welcoming procedures are haphazard. I'll often post a welcome when I see editors with red-linked user talk pages. Others belong to a welcoming committee who watch new registrations and welcome folks even before they've edited for the first time. I'm sorry no one welcomed you before. Don't take it personally.
Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 04:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

hi WBB

Using a source with attribution means that if Source X says that Y=yes, then we would write, "According to X, Y=yes". That's as opposed to simply saying, "Y-yes".
this makes sense. still it leaves us with the unsolved riddle of private websites, used as sources. Carroll's page is a 1-man-show and this apparently is not deemed a "reliable" source in Wiki. pls find a wiki-based solution to this kind of widespread precedent.
Please don't accuse me of being biased. I've never made any personal remark about your interest in this article.
i clearly referred to 'biased readers' in general - that includes me and others too. and there is no need to remark on personal issues of co-writers to walk in self unnoticed (culturally) bias right from the beginning. fish (apparently) don't take water (context/background) into consideration, when elaborating on content (food/foreground).
your different approaches and take on 3 newcomers (myself included) who did lengthy changes with either partially sloppy and untrue remarks or none at all were handled and perceived quite differently by you. and that is where the bias shows itself - in my view.
Hawkins may not like his critics: most folks don't like those who criticize them.
again, this is no matter of personal preference. hardly nobody enjoys slanted judgment. and the slantedness may not even be perceived by the majority. remember how long it took AaL to come to grips with (his version of) "truth" and his inculturation with cultural bias.
there is constructive criticism as well. however, such sources are not delivered on this entry. (cc calibrates acc to Hawkins at loc 210 --> its supportive and 'integrous' and welcome.) i myself feel inspired by constructive criticism (which i have received also by you, assuming good faith on my part.) hawkins as XYZ too refrains from destructive criticism.
again i ask you: inhowfar is wiki obliged to follow its own guidelines on articles on living persons? the living person is granted the right to object critics/criticism. this has been done by hawkins, i guess by other living persons too. so hawkins asks for matter-of-fact criticism, excluding biased (wiki)culturally ingrained criticism. this seems to be a very hard one for wiki hardliners??
We can include some summary of what his website says
pls go ahead.
(though I note that the text is unsigned - do we know who wrote it?).

see liladonavans report in here re his correspondence with Sonia Martin, Hawkins assistant. she stated that he! will insert a statement on critics etc. which he did. if he was the one to do it practically? i doubt that. he is not into computers - has staff who takes care of the practical application of his website. have you raised the same question regarding carroll's personal page as well as andrew patersons and shawn nevins (still without imprint) - hawkins page has an imprint, so he is the one responsible for all that what it states there (changes included).

do we know who wrote it.

we had that already. the subject's personal page is allowed on a wiki article on living persons. other private pages are questionable sources and (not?) allowed on wiki articles (pending subject).

The welcoming procedures are haphazard. I'll often post a welcome when I see editors with red-linked user talk pages. Others belong to a welcoming committee who watch new registrations and welcome folks even before they've edited for the first time.
WBB, i am aware of that interdynamic, WBB, not having adopted the greeting procedure myself yet. ahh, the greeting committee might have caught liladonovan right after registration. not bad. like a price in the lotery?
I'm sorry no one welcomed you before. Don't take it personally.
no problem, Will. tks for doing so belatedly. i didn't take it personally. just observing (also belatedly at times) and occasionally commenting on haphazard/bias/etc.
pls get back to this precedent matter of wiki policy. where to handle that in general. what about living persons 'claiming' constructive criticism only on their wiki entry?
i am well aware that AK testers like i.e. J. Reams reported back to Hawkins where there are flaws in his summarized statements i.e. on AK testing. and he revised/added-on to this issue in later books. this was a clearly constructive message, issued by several sources and taken into account. he corrected and/or explained his own calibration mistakes or double takes, if he/his team had missed to catch them before publishing.
cheerio --Grazia11 11:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to write shorter postings.
The Skeptics Dictionary is a published book printed by an established publisher. That meets our standard for a reliable source and the computer version of the book is linked as a source or external link from over a hundred articles and hundreds of other pages.
Accusing everyone of bias does not further the discussion. Let's just stick to talking about the article.
Subjects do not get to veto their critics, but they do get to ignore or respond to them. All viewpoints should be included. If there are "constructive critics" then let's include their viewpoints too.
Should we assume that all texts on Hawkins's websites are written by him?
Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Riklan

"David Riklan, a self improvement author, rates Hawkins among the 101 best spiritual teachers" the Hawkins article states. I am concerned about this as the book also includes people such as cult leaders L. Ron Hubbard and Werner Erhard, and John Gray (another Columbia Pacific University graduate). I wonder which teachers didn't make it in the book...(P.S. Grazia, I hope you are well. God bless) --ArtAsLife 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/Talk%7EDavid_R._Hawkins_0dbc.html"