Conference hydra::dejavu

	"... is this man a charlatan or is he for real?"

Neither, I think.

I've read some stuff by and about Monroe, but can't say that I have made
a detailed study of him or his methods.  Take that as a grain of salt
in what I have to say below.

Monroe seems to have made an honest attempt at scientific inquiry.
Unfortunately, he seems to have missed some important factors in doing
such work properly.

Monroe has taken his theories (which are based on his experiences) and
made predictions based on those theories.  He then has gone on to test
those predictions.  This is high-school text-book scientific method.

He seems to have left out of the process, however, an absolutely essential
part.

He does not seem to contrast his predictions with those that would be
made by other theories.  He does say "if X is true then A will happen"
and checks to make sure that "A" does indeed happen.  He does *not* ask,
"if Y is true instead of X will A still happen?", or even more importantly,
"what possible Z's other than X would cause A to happen?".

In other words Monroe looks for confirmation of his hypotheses rather
than trying to disprove them or trying to disprove the alternatives.

What he seems, most importantly, to have missed, is the absolute
essentialness of blind and double blind conditions.  From what I have
seen, his results are completely consistent with -- indeed, predictable
from -- direct subject expectation effect and experimenter effect; in
other words self fulfilling prophecy.

The problem is exacerbated by particularly strong tendencies towards
two almost universal flaws:

	1) Selective citation -- he cites the work/experience of others
		which fits his theories, but ignores (rather than explaining)
		that of those which doesn't.

	2) Theoretic protectionism -- when his predictions don't pan out,
		he finds a reason to change his predictions or otherwise
		discount the results without modifying his theory.

Additionally, there seems a bit more hype in his marketing than I am
comfortable with.  I am less sure of the sincerity of his representatives
and organization than I am of his.

My evaluation is, however, not wholly negative.  Although I think that
there are probably more worthwhile places to look, I think that it would
not be a total waste of time investigating his stuff.

I may have, due to the shallowness of my study, misjudged him.  Even if I
didn't, some of his ideas may have merit -- though they would have to be
considered completely untested.  I myself have on my "queue" a more
careful study of his work.

				Topher

    I was wondering about Monroe because of his heavy marketing background,
    that's all.
    
      Mikie?

    I have just finished reading both books by Robert Monroe, JOURNEYS
    OUT OF THE BODY and FAR JOURNEYS. If anybody could give me a summary
    of pages 162 - 170 in FAR JOURNEYS I would appreciate any comments.
                                                                       
    I am quite baffled by this whole concept of Loosh/Love Producers....
    
    :-}
    Arthur

 I got the impression that Mr.Monroe had a very hard time trying to
understand what loosh was also and that he was misinterpreting.When all
you know is round holes you try to make the square peg fit into one.
Sorry I know it is not much help.I waited for someone to answer your
question for quite a while because I was curious myself.Sense no one
has perhaps no one knows.



                  George D.

    Reply to the last -.2,
    
    To me loosh is the connecting energy behind the word we know as
    love. Loosh is more a transference of energy than a feeling for
    someone.