Talk:Big Mind Process

Book references

Added some book references, removed delete request. Will update & revise further when I have another moment. User:Roostafari (talk | contribs) at 10:59, 17 October 2006

Critical perspective

A critical perspective would not be a luxury here. Hiram 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Big Mind Process

This should be put in a separate article called "Big Mind Process" to distinguish it from others different uses of the term. Mumon7 (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article can be example what can be called extreme POV Bulwersator (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken Wilber Quote

Added a quote from Ken Wilber from the foreword of the Big Mind Big Heart book. Another perspective would be a solid addition, as Hiram noted above. FlashClairvoyance (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed the bit about "according to Big Mind website" because that lessens the validity of the quote. It is a direct quote from the Foreword of the Big Mind Big Heart book written by Ken Wilber himself. If he's anti-endorsement as Joshua mentioned he is, then his open support of Big Mind holds even more weight. Also included the full quote to avoid taking snippets out of context. I believe even more of Ken Wilber's words warrant being included, but will add later. FlashClairvoyance (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Brad Warner Viewpoint

Removed the quote from Brad Warner that was included, but replaced with general wording to still include the viewpoint. The quote (and the source in its entirety) are mostly defamatory claims and possibly libelous. FlashClairvoyance (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Libelous? Why? It's the opinion of an outspoken and well-known critic of Merzel. Who's probably a lot more reliable than Ken Wilber. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oaky, I removed both. It's all primary sources, and Ken Wilber is promotional. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal / Merger

I've undone the slash and merge. In keeping with Wiki's encyclopedic nature, building out the article to be more comprehensive rather than slashing it to a sentence and merging it with another article would be the preferred way for us to proceed. Looking forward to building this out. FlashClairvoyance (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. It could use some more body. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Clinical trial

This section is WP:UNDUE. It is longer than all the other sections together, and serves mainly, I think, as promotion. It would be better to summarize it:

"Michael Johnson conducted a randomized clinical trial of Merzel's Big Mind process and concluded that "profound effects can be induced in a short time.""

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I was looking to expand on the earlier sections of the article which would bring more balance. The length of the Clinical Trials section wouldn't be out of line then. I don't think it's terribly self-serving either, at least by my interpretation. The wording states that there were some statistically significant results (data and results), the process would merit further investigation (neutral), and that it seemed to show a change in mindfulness (positive). I would be very interested in a follow-up clinical trial to test the consistency of these results. If anyone happens to find one, please do share! FlashClairvoyance (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Google scholar, the test is cited by only one other publication. and the test was probably part of a PhD-project, so I'm afraid that there has not been a follow-up so far. As for the theory, "kensho in one day" - ... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding in some additional details and info on this section Joshua. Trying to find more than just the summary description of the study. FlashClairvoyance (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So, the participants got into a deep samadhi, they reached kensho, and they became very mindfull. Unfortunately, the reported effects may also result from factors such as group effect, suggestibility, and/or simple expectation, and the study may have limited generalizability due to the high level of education of the participants. What's more, the reuslts are compared with those of "advanced meditators", but the data of those "advanced meditators" are absent, as is an explanantion of the method of comparison; and the PCI is used in an invalid way for comparison with Suzuki's absolutely unreliable "descriptions" of kensho. And Johnson misquotes Piron. What Johnson did was executing a fairly standard trial, describe the method and results, and then add more research in the discussion, without an explanation of theory, method and results of this additional research, only his conclusions. Not controllable, not in line with what he describes in the introduction as his research plan, not in accordance with scientific standards. Conclusion: rubbish. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for some critical comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Big Mind Process. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Teachings Edit

Was previewing edit but clicked save before adding edit summary. Added a teachings section with a list of the voices from the book, may add other sub-sections as well.FlashClairvoyance (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to Joshua Jonathan for the assist on some citation cleanup and organization. FlashClairvoyance (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Clean-up

@Famousdog: go ahead! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge

@Famousdog: merge with Andrew Cohen! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe later. There's no mention of Big Mind on his article. Famous_dog (c) 07:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There is; same content, same sources. I've merged it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)