Is he right in this secular context?  Nothing in this website is to be swallowed wholesale.

It is not starry-eyed about all of the latest discoveries and theories.

The visitor to this site is emphatically asked to form his or her own opinion.

All voices should be heard.

That does not mean, at the end of the day, it is ‘six of one and half a dozen of the other’. This attitude is a peculiarly English malaise though it can also be glimpsed in the politeness of the Japanese and the vigorous Cartesian line that is a hallmark of French intellectuals. The very process of being balanced morphs into being magisterial; this of itself tends towards thinking that there is something to be said for all sides. But sometimes it is a case of right – or wrong. Further, the calm consideration of a given view so as to get it balanced may result in legitimately becoming angry when one wasn’t before.

This website will occasion controversy in some quarters.  Here is what Dan Remenyi writes about one of its’ central lines of argument:

I am struck by the incongruity of the idea that somehow reflection could be catalogued as a subsection of Western Meditation or for that matter meditation be a subset of reflection. I see these two concepts are entirely different.

For the purposes of simplicity, I will use the Wikipedia definitions of Meditation and Reflection. Meditation is described as a practice in which an individual uses a technique – such as mindfulness, or focusing the mind on a particular object, thought, or activity – to train attention and awareness and achieve a mentally clear and emotionally calm and stable. Reflection is the act of giving something serious thought. Using dictionaries, thesaurus and just common English usage there is no direct connection between the concepts of meditation and reflection. The Wikipedia definition is how I use the word meditation. On one of your webpages, you cite an extract from a Jewish prayer which says “And can I better employ this holy Sabbath than in endeavouring to exalt my mind, and purify my soul, than by meditation on Thy Holy Law, by prayer, and by the severe examination of my thoughts and actions… Then my body will enjoy rest, my heart elevated in gratitude, and my faith and courage sustained by meditation and prayer; thus will my soul be prepared for eternity.

The use of the word meditation here conveys a different idea which is neither what I call meditation nor reflection. In the religious context here the word meditation is being used to describe the process of focusing on a sacred object to reach a state of some tranquillity. It is much more like the way a mantra is used in proper meditation itself.

I see the word reflection as bringing to mind a number of things. Firstly, to reflect is necessary to pause and concentrate. Secondly reflection means engaging in active thought on a specific subject. Thirdly, the active thought needs to be in the form of asking questions such as:

1. What precisely am I doing?
2. What do I really know for sure about what I am doing?
3. What are the expected consequences of my current trajectory.

There is another level of questioning, and this is generally referred to as using reflexivity. Reflexivity employs a different level of questioning. The “what” word is often replaced with the “why” word can be quite problematic. In practicing reflexivity the questions would now address issue such as:

1. Why am I doing this thing?
2. Why do I think that what I am doing matches up with my values?

Do you, the visitor to this website, accept what is said above?

The oxygen of  publicity, good or bad, can make the difference between a new theory being stillborn or it growing robust.

What actuates some critics of new theories, particularly as regards the significane of scientific findings?

          Are the views of sceptics always to be trusted?

          Pooh-poohing is often convincing to people bombarded with information. “Let’s believe ‘Trip Adviser’, its contributors have no axe to grind!” Look no further! Speed on! Next!

There is a distinction to be made between theories that are just plumb wrong or ill-researched, and those which have been over-hyped in the past and which may yet contain a germ of useful information.  For centuries, for instance, the idea that a person might have an aura was thought indicative of some shamanistic or mystical branch of recondite knowledge about the unseen world but through the researches firstly of William Kilner there seems to be a clear demonstration of the fact that people do have auras, and they can give useful information for instance about the state of a person’s health.  That need not be such a surprising fact given scientific discoveries.  Bodies give off impulses and ‘waves’.

If no establishment endorses the labour, dedication, bravery, honesty or creativity of the inventor – portrayed sometimes in the common mind as poring over midnight oil in garrets – they are easy game to those in the copper-bottomed institutions of academia. Some critics are a prey to jealousies… to a tendency to iconoclasm…to a dislike of any challenge to well-trodden paths but…:

Are some critics – as is indubitably the case – genuinely concerned that the public or experts or leaders may be duped by a new-fangled but ultimately misconceived idea spawned by the Swivel-eyed?  Scientists and philosophers can get it wrong.

It behoves us all to keep an open mind.

Several lecturers and authors mentioned on the website have run into controversy, even mockery.  If there is disagreement over the main thrust of their arguments, does it mean that they have nothing at all of interest to say?

Under New Religion on this website, there is much made of ‘Synchronicity’.  Below is what one correspondent to the institute has written:

‘…Synchronicity is not about randomness but in fact, just the opposite, as it displays an orchestrated set of events which seem to mimick thoughts, answer questions or enlighten the recipient, often waymarking a beneficial or divine path for them.

The laws of nature do not change, it is rather the human understanding of them which expands.

The fact that we understand very little gives the appearance of the natural laws changing when in fact it is just we humans who have too narrow a grasp of what is going on…’

Sacred Geometry underpins the entire laws of the universe and encompasses all disciplines both above and below, a perfect harmonic order with intelligent design behind it. The randomness theory is pushed to make us less powerful, confident and secure and also reduce trust in faith or religion, as chaos not divne order and purpose or soul progression is the first tenet of The New World Order and its demonic anti-God minions….’

—–

The sceptically-inclined can be justified in casting brickbats upon the waters.  It is arguable that fuel is provided to this approach for instance by:

How We Are Being Misled About The Science of Consciousness by Gerald R. Baron

The large gap between science consensus and what the public believes has come to light on a number of topics: climate change, GMOs, safety of vaccination, and so on. One of the biggest gaps may be what science says about the mind-brain connection and what the public is told science says about that through popular media.

Or, again:

Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer.

A theme of this Institute is that Certainty about almost everything that matters is a will-o’the-wisp. The most that we humans usually can hope for is Probability. We easily err in cleaving to beliefs with too much adhesive or passion. The biter should be prepared to be bit. Sceptics can deserve a taste of their own medicine even where it is useful in setting the scene for progress.

It is far from the purpose in this Virtual Agora for Occidental Mediation to inject vinegar into the body politic. Compassion, love, harmony rules the roost, prithee please! ‘No Name so No Shame’ reads a tablet of stone on our rose-bestrewn pathway. A critique – without name or co-ordinates given here though it is on the internet – of the magisterial work The Tao of Physics pointed out that little mention was made in it of the hard-won scientific work that went into the experimental results and conclusions. it was also said that the case made for an overlap between mysticism and science did not stand up. Here is a taster of the powerful style of the criticism:

‘Starting with reasonable descriptions of quantum physics, he (Capra) constructs elaborate extensions, totally bereft of the understanding of how carefully experiment and theory are woven together and how much blood, sweat, and tears go into each painful advance.’

Some may think that notion calls to mind a dyspeptic grampus aiming a pea-shooter at a trail-blazing comet. Parallels in the book are pointed in a learned and informative way. It is irrelevant in the context if advances of science are hard-won. A major tenet in the book was that the Eastern mind-set in general is less conducive to surprise at the findings in Physics than that of the more Western mind as they corroborate what has been intuitively known for millennia to mystics. The author undoubtedly is an expert in both these fields. It is a legitimate point of view and may sometimes lead on to a new respect for a time-honoured but now much discarded way of thinking.

It has been said before in the rubrics of this institute that a conclusion is less than the sum of the parts, some of which may be excellent – as is the case in this hugely informative, must-read book that sold in its’ millions.