User talk:DynEqMin

Welcome!


Hello, DynEqMin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! We're so glad you're here! Manul ~ talk 16:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''

Reply to initial difficulties:

Thank you for welcomes comm's and replies to staff. Received helpful guidelines. Lots of alert flags have been acceptable if reverted to coherent discussion. Introductory comm's with 'Desk' volunteers and management directed me to post on the philosophy forum. I reasoned somewhere else it was psychology and other places to commence, there was even a years delay until notice of other pages was priority. Legal, political and scientific implications were evident of abusive complex sarcasm, with extraneous and wholly derogatory comments to all concern, reflecting on a project 'modelled after that of the Human Genome'. Let me make this clear, no legal action was suggested in my comm's, but all the pure bickering in the past on the ISP 'dedicated pioneer of interdisciplinary science' was none acceptable, remaining for years on the talk page: 'what dirt more can we dig up' was at the top of the page. I suggested that we therefor start with taking that extraneous material off, including the flags called tags that accompanied with excuses for speaking replaced by labels like pseudoscience or fringe science. --DynEqMin (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

With regard to my article   'painted a one-sidedly positive picture'    A very concise general outline is what I have added. I commented that Wallace's material deserves proper discussion with protocols on that outlining scientific research.

From the beginning of pre-ISP research bias and psudoscience was part of investigation. There is nothing wrong with the credentials of my remarks, they are plain and simple, based on adequate references as a general model of pertinent issues. Bickering left on those pages previously was atrocious, not representing the branches of neuroscience or psychology and showing no knowledge of them. It remained for years and caused confusion to all concern. I commented on misleading information denigrating projects of vital and higher research into human flourishing, etc, ect. This provided reliably known valid info on a feature of foundational science relating interaction of humans. We need to take this to Wiki arbitration, because all the qulaitative statements about what I have written, most essentially ignore what I have simply stated. No authentic semantics is present as regards dialogue or proper debate. This kind of aloof indifference, is dogmatism.--DynEqMin (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Replies: The article on a Sci. of Consc., represents mainstream consensus from scientific traditions and branches of science. These facts are being ignored and I feel that all these flags should be omitted and discussed forthwith. --DynEqMin (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

{{help me-helped}}
 * I gave a short summary of how Wikipedia content should be written above. If you want to write a new article, I'd suggest using the Article Wizard to write a draft and to submit it for a review by an experienced editor. If your text represets the scientific consensus of fourty years, it should be easy for you to cite peer-reviewed papers that explicitly back up what you wrote. Compare Wikipedia's policies on verifiability. Huon (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks be JImbo

Discussions: Dialogue and Debate
--DynEqMin (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to B. Alan Wallace. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 18:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC) bla bla

I will not be changing anything else now I find my way around 'this place'. Excuse personal waffle. I responded to questions like those above about original research to a distinguished fellow of Wikipedia: 'My work is not original or core research per-say; it does not go-beyond Wallace's original research in empirical terms, but epistemically (and in terms of dialogue) it fills in gaps of placing thoroughly debated interdisciplinary (also cross-and-trans-disciplinary) science material for general readership perspectives (and in terms of est. principles of dialectics); edited the material as if in dialogue with caring people who have entry-level understanding. it should be clear that proper 3rd-person protocols are needed for such a project. I would also appreciate help not hinderance of integrity. It is commentary on what is already established and mainstream by 4 decades of mentioned consensus. These reflections are not based on reports at conference proceedings, but relate to publication of multiple papers in a peer-reviewed journals and some 40 book publications. It does concern established knowledge. The outlines represent what researchers call a 'lay summary' of research', rather than a technical research report. DynEqMin (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have already responded to a few questions like those above about original research to a distinguished fellow of Wikipedia: 'My work is not original or core research per-say; it does not go-beyond Wallace's original research in empirical [linguistic] terms, but epistemically (and in terms of dialogue) it fills in the gaps of placing thoroughly debated interdisciplinary (also cross-and-trans-disciplinary) science material for general readership perspectives (and in terms of frshly est. principles of dialectics: another unmentioned). I have edited the material as if in dialogue to understand it. it should be clear that proper 3rd-person protocols are needed for such a project 'modelled after the Human Genome. I would also appreciate it if there were then, people to help with reformulating my material contributed, and not hindering or belittling it (it is not 'novel material').

When I read a paragraph like that, I have no idea what you're actually trying to say, so I have no idea how to help you. My suggestion to you is to write plainly. Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal, and its editors are just regular people. Write to us as if you were talking to a friend, not as if you were writing an article for a scholarly journal. The more plain you can make your meaning, the better others will be able to help you. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If you look under the word lexicon in my two sets of notes, you will see why I use different words, and then specific questions may be useful to all concern. More qualms: 'Perhaps your phrases convey meaning to the limited number of readers who are already well-versed in Wallace's writings' Thank you for your reflections although the same applies to the critisism, and the shorthand remarks are meaningful for specific discussion and such elaboration. They have to be sufficiently dense in order to proceed in this context.--92.23.33.118 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

More: Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.}} Another thing, the editor of Wallace's page has not contacted me on the precise comments I made on present editing (documented at the bottom of the talk page. They were quite pertinent.
 * I think you meant to continue the conversation with . I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @  07:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for guidelines!

POV tags
If you're going to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=B._Alan_Wallace&diff=prev&oldid=681292384 slap] POV-statement tags on an article, you would do well to open a discussion about that issue, in clear and concise English please, on the talk page. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Proper use of few tags was made, showing what has not been taken into consideration as salient guidelines including further sources.--DynEqMin (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC) More: A presentation to the best of all representative virtue can be functionally preserved without more clutter to ISP science pages. It is not question of favorite bias because the whole project does concern a project that as stated, is modelled after the Human Genome Project from the perspective of 'consciousness studies' (as in the title: SB Inst of Consc. Stud.). This is a term of original introduction by Wallace et al meaning 'consciousness perspectives'; in context as meritorious guidelines of meaningful dedication to respective branch-science: correlating qualified first-person meditative-praxis empirically free of conceptual bias. Such a project has established its own science lexicon and standards of discussion interface on it.

It is of notice that a whole load of Wiki science categories seem to have bias without scientifically established rules being adhered to. I talk of the bigger picture now because under the category of 'consciousness studies'. Following guidelines of pioneers such as Penrose (past, present, and future) who have excellently followed these rules that relate complementarity (an est. term like others) is the way of making successful progress on complex technical validities. If you look at the list of categories, it has become quite wishy washy.--DynEqMin (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Specific ex. of reply on notes for re-editing: 'A former Bhuddist monk, founded etc.' No that is all out of context (said on the talk page). 'His work has focused on the relationships between science and Eastern philosophy'. That involves political philosophy and it is not true in that context. Let's take the first part of the clause: 'has focused': in this instance it is demeaning to be put in the past tense, in addition to making obscure without mentioning the whole focal point of his career of ISP and related science. What about the statements do I find non-neutral is well understood on parts of the Talk page mentioned above. Grammar here for example in the related contextual spiritual and secular discipline, and especially the dedicated Buddhist dialectics is very precise on this, and quite meaningfully, the kind of statements like he is something that he was in the past are shown to be wholly problematic (that is also true in general philosophy).

More comm's: His first concerns from the outset were explicitly from the perspective of contributing to the empirical science on evolved Jamesian and a plethora of other integral principles. If we two were to achieve success in what should be Chomski's own task, then I will also probably have to make some editing changes for general readership. I trust these notes to you are plain, with no argument but dialogue being meant in respect to you.


 * Chomski's own task: again, not sure what you mean. I understand Noam Chomsky to be a noted linguist and cognitive scientist, but I don't know how your phrase "Chomski's own task" applies here. Is this a sideways reference to the use of language? Or some reference to Chomsky's involvement in cognitive science?    A.   The first Q. has been answered above, the 2nd mean his discoveries have an explicit configuring-complementarity to ISP established rules and principles, in projects between the two long implicit. We could request someone in Chomski's Dept. to give us an analysis program suitable to give a whole analysis and edit of my texts. That would be a sentient creature! The other reasons for this concern by his own word, not just to his own originating region.

WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarity still not achieved. Points in question:


 * contributing to the empirical science on evolved Jamesian principles: what does that mean? The only reference I can find to "Jamesian principles" is the Jamesian theory of self

A.     I mention these aspects to reiterate the outlines for this task with respect to the extensive research. None of this needs to be anymore clear.

The eminent present William James Professor offers this info and should be available from online sources: Radical empiricism (given with founded near expressions in the outlines), from the very beginnings of the ISP project research, have been the impulse of specific principles, of outlook adhered to on which a whole contemporary grid of projects has scientific identity: through all the specific debates that have continued. My reflections on the sci of consc. confirm this. This solves the perspectives of orientations in the biography in that they should be elucidated as eloquently as that emergent knowledge in science. It is also something to do with the definition:

The phrasing: consciousness perspectives (studies), is well founded as first-person meditative research practices and discursive vision quests of branch-science, free of conceptual bias, and also non-conceptual bias; as together with the epistemic acumen as contextually implicit.

Epistemology and hermenautics are the perspectives to begin with. Present-centered contemporary parts of psychology were the most prominent aspect to is accolaids acknowledged, and should be according to these histories.

e.g. He did not found the SB Institute solely on the ethics he somehow inherited from afar, and at the same time he inherited the whole nexus of ethics studies of each layer of Buddhism required for the science.

Had edited some of this page, esp. notes of outlines to be more precise. An automated message came up saying that an adjudicator would be reviewing the page. I think it was because I did not log in. Anyway, the revision was not revered back and now left with a waste of work.

Talk page editing
You are free to remove content from your talk page as you see fit, but if you have made comments here that others have responded to, you should not then further edit your comments, as this places the respondents' comments out of their original context. (See WP:REDACT.) If you don't want the comments on your talk page any longer, either delete them, or preferably, archive them. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC) A. Your edits on the Main page (you do so falsely assume to be the editor, and ignore any rules, every care was taken here inc. respect thanks. Will delete this after  improvement.--DynEqMin (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC) You removed tags showing where mistakes are without discussion. That has said everything.--DynEqMin (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

More abuse There's a discussion about your editing at WP:ANI Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding tendentious and disruptive editing. The thread is Tendentious and disruptive editing by User:DynEqMin.The discussion is about the topic B. Alan Wallace. Thank you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Notes:

According to SciCVN.org the support model backed by a valid career record, the level of his knowledge is that of a first-class background model-U.N. peacekeeper, whose pragmatic research of intercollegiate corroboration has configured all the necessary understanding for a foundational purview of trans-disciplinary science; in terms of what is aptly phrased as 'inner and outer peacekeeping and peace-building' (as a reflection of ancient and contemporary 'inner and outer science': now as a mindfulness-introspective).

Blocked
I have blocked you indefinitely per the discussion here. Should you wish to appeal this block, please read Guide to appealing blocks. --Neil N  talk to me 01:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply to editing block:

Thanking whatever efforts that were somewhat helpful from editors, and it is noticed that there is a lot of scientistic dogma that has hindered your being able to improve. Changing one emphatic word of a section title caused this ban, although previously oversight was given to a beginner on Wikipedia. Nevertheless steady improvements had been made, in addition to being able to reformulate one of the outline documents. Apologies for not being able make clearer a presentation to re-formulate other parts, and this was because of profuse and unspecific questioning with abusive arguments from experienced editors avoiding the specific questions. At least a format was created in which proper discussions on editing could take place, that generally presented means for consideration, but for minor grammatical mistakes that during at least a month should have been of specific reference and not time-wasting generalisations. These all without exception applied to the these infringements and not to the structure created. I explained that the presentations are part of a contemporary science lexicon as an interface for general readership and dialogue, and that what was previously on the pages was only derogatory remarks. Now only those remarks are highlighted on the pages, and an entirely diminished biography is present that contains no meaning. The reasons given on the talk page were clear enough if only the editing reflected careful analysis, it was shown that the current editing is in context meaningless, in every way those concerns have been formulated. There where no coherent discussions on any material presented. What the page attempted to discuss previously was scientism based on most obscure and completely wrong conclusions, and that was and still is supposed to be presented for general readership. Then as I properly explained, bringing in politics into the whole framework was most inappropriate that harmed all the concerns. In concern to this is the present editing, that with reason given plainly in full (all now slightly obscured from view), obscure those emergent foundations of science. At least the basic outlines where of very clear English, that are most worthy university efforts of four decades describing the actual aspirations and successes that are the foundations on which a biography is supposed to be written. It did have reliable sources mentioned, and directions that others could help with, in the placement of all other needed or unneeded correlations. The block only highlights mistakes the editors have made.

It is of notice that someone has mashed the syntax of the first clause of previous introduction to re-forming the bio on the Talk page (and there was not even consultation on that), it contained the mutually-acceptable to all, words: 'without ideological reification'. There are a few instances of those mistakes, not specifically of reference by previous editors, amidst what are otherwise vey clear general outlines. Furthermore, after this user had placed into context whole parts of the Talk page by adding comment, where continuity was little intelligible (without change to other users contributions), some key clauses in discussions have now been deleted so they do not tally (in addition to the blocked user comments that have no meaning in that there are simply some syntax issues with the presentation that gave some semblance of dialogue. In the current presentation, it seems to have improved, but alert notices have been removed that refers to debate on the Talk page that contrast and refute most undue bias. The DynEqMin presentation was also non-antagonistic, and properly mediated, through meticulous records of understanding in the history of prior debate that have transitioned (hermeneutics), when  extranuous comments arose.--DynEqMin (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * DynEq, you don't appear to have grasped the nature of the discussion causing your block at all. You claim:
 * Changing one emphatic word of a section title caused this ban
 * That is not at all true. If you carefully read the discussion regarding your editing that ultimately led to your block, you will learn that you were blocked for repeatedly ignoring the advice of other users to attempt to communicate more plainly and clearly. The consensus of the discussion was that you are either unwilling or unable to communicate in plain English, and therefore do not have the competence required to edit the English language Wikipedia. The block had nothing to do with any emphatic word in a section title, it had to do with a long-term pattern of editing. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

O.K. We have discussed all that. Don't worry now. Some of the following holds the meaningful primary answers to support what I previously stated.

I am keeping our pragmatic records here, and really, this user does not intend to see you humiliated. No, I am not practically guilty of any of the dogmatic accusations. I corrected mine at every stage the only way I knew how, and thanks for special patience given. Any of the earrings of my presentations do not reflect or are close to the subject in the bio. All the implied outline material is the so-called 3rd-person imperative unbiased view of accomplishment. These outlines I have now reformulated on the SciCVN site. You see, all the one word accusations may be your conventions, but none of them reflect the way I have acted at all. Practically they are in this instance very highly insulting and downright wrong. The urgency of the situation was to respond to the offensive wordings like 'arrogant' (highly slanderous and blatantly untrue, as caused by the singular attitudes that each editor wished to justify)), and then the urgency to constantly remind in full, of the real tasks to transcend for voiding the bias errors, well this meant that you were kind in allowing me to break some rules. I must applaud you for that and not take any of this personally. You see, really this level of bio (on most sensitive subjects) needs a DPhil outlook. A lot of people who really do know these definitive protocols are sometimes belittled as 'academics'. Let's commence again: the Balance Walla, a self-referential term of the ISP  'Science Master' is not, I say not a mere expert in Tibetan Buddhism. To be precise he and anyone connected to him are not 'ism' people. The word 'Bodi' is what is meant by 'Budd'. This is one qualified philosophical perspective. What about the other Buddhism he is specialist in? You do not have a single argument there, as they are all related together, and what's more with other cultures including Indo-European langauge.! Since actually you are asking in some way properly, I want give these essential meanings. The meaning of the Skt. 'dharma', that I gave of phenomenology is one of the main aspects of scientific method used in the ISP, is really so meaningful and up-to-date info and how it is expressed is really the only way that is respectful. Talk about bias and neutral, I explained already these aspects and how they are 'uncommon'. All these aspects have not evolved through mere aspects of conceptuality, but in the most worthwhile sense express the meaning of a protocoled language of expression (dedicated natural language of a topic or discipline). If we understand this, we have transcended the bare intellectual understanding and fathomed a non-intellectual aspect, that is a foundational aspect of culture. I hope you like the reform of the outline document, and I really wish you well. If you follow the above recommendations, we do not want the bio to look better than that of the CEO here, but if it helps with the integrity of that persons bio by making the meaning of 'scient-ism' more honest and integral, then this is what science demands. Ah, brain science, you know, with the rate of nihilistic destruction of the planet, the only science worth knowing is that of the consciousness studies. I notice our collegues have not denigrated Greg Braden's bio: he worked for the CIA. Well, a lot of Wallace's associates are doing legitimate and honestly valid work for such security agencies as much as rain science does. I think you are all worthwhile ol chap, but the HImalayan thing I placed and other suggestions are not gobbledygook: another word (advised by dist. Wikipedians as meaning "deliberately meaningless") as that also forgiven coming from these discussions from extranuous editing.--DynEqMin (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

All the records why any of the above is pragmatically untrue, including your unwillingness to properly edit without being highly political and insulting to all possible causes of implication, are contained on the talk page. Pressured and a little jumbled they may be but clear where they count. You and collegues so far, in six weeks of time wasting, have not been contextual about a single problem. I am sorry to state this and it is clear from how MIT has described these trends in http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ This is just an old charitable article, and I have said something positive on this subject in reforming the 'outline document' on the SciCVN Sci of Consc. page. I have not re-edited the Sci of Consc. doc. itself yet, but I know there is one error I am going to find and a lot of repreated text to omit (it is not dogma, it is part of the outline of scientific 'working hypotheses'). That is, unlike the brain science imputations (that Wallace, most pertinently is an expert in, and attenuator of). Now this bio is of central import to all that. And it all requires the greatest cares. O.K. we need published reliable sources for what I am talking of. We do, ut please first recognise reasoning in the content. Kind regards then, Hum! P.S. A chap called Atmanspacher (brain science) has been a colleague of Wallace for one, from Jung's own Institute His records will confirm this role of Wallace: the JUng Inst would also inform us of sources of the greatest import  No, our benefactor, Wale I feel would not want lies about psuedoscience being propogated. But this Tibet thing: its the 'roof of the world', and we can cultivate respect for 'all' who are there now concerned with it whilst being most realistic and honest for the sake of all beings.--DynEqMin (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me remind again, 'dharma' is the word denoted in all traditions as Budd-ism, ('secular Budd.' or whatever); its literal meaning spells out the scientific and deeply philosophical method of 'phenomenology' (of Husserl's expert definitions). WIth that term 'dharma', Buddhist of all traditions have no such word for religion, and just like science have dedicated, devotional, philosophical (meaning an innermost experiential philosophy, not bickering), and spiritual aspects (in terms of modern science and the scientific enlightenment it carried with it nihilistic religious aspects), demystified from bias as 'a way of life' and science of worldview (astrophysicist Piet Hut's intimation). This phenomenology, part of it is though of import as pragmatic testing that Buddha outlined. By the way, I have now about 30 new source references to back statements, or as solid background sources to support the outlines.I should not have to quote what I have stated before again if you are understanding what I am taking of here. Tibet is way in the background, he practices a synthesis of phenomenological background practice as working hypotheses. Let's get this clear, that stuff about religion is really untrue and insulting, and do not cover-up this stuff further as editors have encouraged by dismissing the three tags on your editing. I do appreciate some new developments in that editing.--DynEqMin (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of Reply:

I have been keeping proper records in being present with these problems, and have endeavoured to attenuate negativity at every stage from various perspectives in practical ways, and thanks for consideration given. Any earrings of presentation do not reflect the subject in the bio. Those outlines I have now again reformulated on the SciCVN site, revealing all the meaning they hold. The one phrase accusations may be your conventions, but they mainly reflect the dogma as well as my being a beginner. There was an urgency to respond to slanderous and untrue remarks on myself and on the subject. This level of bio (on sensitive subjects) needs DPhil perspectives that are not merely academic. Agian, the ISP 'Science Master' is not, I say not a mere expert in Tibetan Buddhism. To be precise he and anyone connected to him are not 'ism' people. The word 'Bodi' is the same as 'Budd'. This is one qualified philosophical perspective. What about all the other aspects of Buddhism he practices a synthesis of and is specialist in? It contradicts what you say. The practices are also intimately related in every sense to mainstream contemporary psychology (outlined), and what's more with other cultures especially Indo-European and related language. The meaning of the Skt. 'dharma', that I gave of 'phenomenology' is the central aspect of ISP scientific method, and this is meaningful and up-to-date info, and how the provisions of respect are observed is of import. Talk about bias and being neutral, I explained already these aspects and how they are of 'uncommon' relation in this. I have reformulate the outline document., but it should not mean that this bio would end-up looking more lengthy than the CEO's bio. This persons bio has always helped to make more honest and integral the meaning of 'scient-ism', in a way that science's principles demand. At the rate of nihilistic permutations of science, what can attenuate that destructiveness is consciousness studies. I notice our colleagues have not denigrated Greg Braden's bio: he worked for the CIA. Well, a lot of Wallace's associates are committed to legitimate and honest valid work for security agencies. I have listened to your directions and not wholly ignored them, but the HImalayan reflections and other guidelines are not gobbldigook: another word that we should also forgive coming from these discussions by a passing stranger.

I mentioned the specific political issues as detailed in full. Pressured and a little jumbled the replies to questions may be, but of generally clear meaning. In six weeks of editing, there has been very little discussion accept being pedantic. I have again reformulated the 'outline document' by means of the SciCVN.org website, that is on the Sci of Consc. page. The presentation of scientific 'working hypotheses' within the Sci of Consc. essay. have not been edited yet but the supportive outlines have been of import to that. Before choosing the reliable specific sources for the outlines, a task has been highlighting of explicit meanings. A further source for the profound ISP integrity of its outlook on brain-science is a dialogue counterpart in Atmanspacher (neuroscientist from Jung's own Institute. Their records will confirm Wallace's ISP role in establishing network praxis to peaceably attenuate absurd scientistic bias factors of static representation: that is, as a contemporary central philosophy that can validly be called centrist, and the Jung Inst. would also confirm many sources in relation to that import The 'roof of the world' talk, and the religious aspects are really imputations that are a demeaning view. So please continue to improve the nurture of respect for all those concerns.

Allow to reiterate again: 'dharma' is the denoted word in all traditions interpreted as Budd-ism; its literal meaning spells out the 'scientific' and deeply philosophical method  of 'phenomenology' (of Husserl's expert definitions). By the word 'dharma', a corresponding meaning of religion is absent, although like science it has adequate dedicated, devotional, spiritual or religious (the ancient 'Church Scientific'), and philosophical aspects (meaning an innermost experiential philosophy: not bickering), demystified from bias as worldview (astrophysicist Piet Hut's intimation) and 'way of life'. This phenomenology of all aspects connected with the 'mindfulness introspective' (you can verify with SB Inst whether this and any other phrases are adequate and useful enough and if diff. that would be of interest), defines the import of pragmatic placement to experience that Buddha outlined (radical empiricism in William James, outlined, of which Wallace is 'prodigious'). By the way, I have now about 30 new source references to back statements, or as solid background sources to support the outlines. I should not have to quote what I have stated before again if what is expressed is assimilated with caring interest. Tibet is way in the background, he practices a 'synthesis of phenomenological background practice' as comprising means of 'scientific' working hypotheses (this has been so well argued, again and again and all these sources are contained in research notes available from this user. Let's get this clear, that stuff about religion is really untrue and most insulting, and these issues should not be obscured by removing legitimate alerts other editors on the scene have encouraged by dismissing the three tags. I do appreciate some new developments in that editing.--DynEqMin (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * DynEqMin, you are just pouring fuel onto the fire. You were blocked for exactly the sort of editing you are engaged in here. When blocked, your talk page access is usually preserved to allow you to request an unblock, following Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks. Writing walls of unintelligible text is not going to help you. Even worse, you are apparently still trying to argue the case you were prosecuting when you got blocked (it's hard to tell for sure because as per your previous editing what you are writing here seems to be gibberish).  This is not what you are still allowed access here for and unless you stop, I predict that an administrator may revoke your talk page access. -  Nick Thorne  talk  00:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, your right there, here are some of the guidelines, and the two outlines on the 'Talk' are to be replaced, and available to read on the SciCVN model-site. Yes please unblock. Prosecuting, I mentioned all the dignitaries concerned who oversee you. Hope we get on well now.

WikiDan61, Greetings Intro: SciCVN generic outlines of research forwarded for reformulating the ISP President's bio on Wikipedia presented as guidelines for discussion

A qualification of the ISP Presidents notable progression is as role a first-class pioneer in background models of peace-building, supported by intercollegiate pragmatic research corroboration, that has configured necessary understanding for foundational purviews of interdisciplinary science without ideological reification. This can aptly be phrased as 'inner and outer peacekeeping and peace-building'; parallel to ancient and contemporary 'inner and outer science' in relation to a 'mindfulness-introspective' of well qualified flourishing (from a basis of learnedness in the Theravadin, Mahayana, and Maha-Ati roots of non duality (Skt. advaita). One function is as a dedicated research pioneer with respect to Buddhist and general foundations of science, that may be classed as 'pragmatic intercultural-hermeneutics'. In relation to the above. All these aspects of ISP research do not belong to a single tradition of expertise but to a generic syntheses of research, commensing from Sanskrit foundations including those in contemporary Indo-European and other transitional language, to dedicated forms of 'intercultural hermeneutics' (SOAS, University of London: Dr. Seyfort Ruegg's defining terms as a 'Buddhist Forum' published paper), and beyond, to trans-cultural hermenautics. The maps of correlation to Indian Buddhist and related Asian philosophical schools, are of inclusive perspectives, representing parallels of larger complementarity among what can be phrased as the ancient to contemporary: inner and outer sciences, originally mapped by the Sanskrit templates.

A. Piatigorski: The Pali abhidhamma: Philosophy or Terminology? The Buddhist Forum, Dec. 1998 Professor D. Seyfort Ruegg: Some Reflections on Translating Sanskrit and Tibetan Philosophical Texts; The Buddhist Forum, Nov. 1990.

What I suggest is I submit here instructions for cleaning the talk page and lets place aside prudence if we all should be honest with each other. It is in a mess and lets not ignore any of the inspiring discussions that have taken place in the space. I think I have omitted all the jargon from all sides above. Way to go! The CEO's office has been notified. Please unblock and I am sure all the other editors will clean up the ambiguous mess of all our intents expressed. I mean we keep of course all our contributions so far inc the science people. I feel that all this can now be verbatim in the bio, with all sources now mapped. The others may please now in their clarity that I applaud may now is acheived. Rest and be even-mindedness to this task of ours good to contrib to Wikepedia. Please find the new outlines verbatim on SciCVN on good progress in all the sources to properly represent as a primary thesis on psuedoscience, and the rest, that is communal.--DynEqMin (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No one is going to pay any attention to this until you formulate a proper unblock request. I provided a link to instructions in my first post. --Neil N  talk to me 23:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the proper request and can you copy it, what more needs adding as we have all said to the style of complex waffle.
 * It's rather amazing that with all the incomprehensible prose you churn out, you cannot understand: To make an unblock request, copy the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: . Don't forget to insert your own reason to replace "Insert your reason to be unblocked here". --Neil N  talk to me 23:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

--DynEqMin (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply to the Unblock. Clarify some reason here as well: If I do not do the tasks on that page to clarify misrepresentations in the Talk presentations to the public. It is felt that the present clarifications (in textual clarity of meanings under discussion, the present coherence of my discussion changes circumstances. If other editors wish to ignore the present reasons then they should indicate clearly their reasons and discuss these, before unblock: I welcome their guidance.

The reasons are at every stage of discussions that your guidelines for unblocking, and indicates you have not read any of the documentation (by the way, you are not discussing 'consciousness studies' in these efforts: the other editors are. Again the arguments posted in the 'giving reasons' of the unblock req refusal, have been at each stage been of attenuation, and my present edits as these few days are of proper import to re-editing and for open discussion on the talk page. Blocks in the form of being plainly ignored from the beginning merit review from the beginning, with specific analysis provided.

This may mean you have not read the proceedings to argue against further insinuation. You have not read or discussed with the editor and others the importance of the new material. You like others have ignored any contextual reference.

Other issues: Some content has been unprofessionally hacked around with so some clauses (as I did not) now incoherent content. I do not have to be editing these pages from now on but the editors would all agree or not have objection to my latest replies.

If you ignore these messages then we should wait for the Board to give advice or whatever. My reason is all contained in that complaint. No, you are not then to be discussing anything on consc. with. (unblock person: any coherent reply welcomed)--DynEqMin (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "Board" that is going give advice. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 01:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You have not responded to any of the coherent issues being discussed, and you can forget all reference to me as it is not the outlines that are blocked as you abuse the issue. It is the outline material so we do not want false labels here as from the beginning there were issues of ignoring. Why do you presume someone would want to get further involved but for the presented material and problems made. It is the Audit people that are of reference above (at 'board', who else?) who have been provided a full report. If you are not at all coherent then you should not be posting further on this page. References to special contributions are also requested for omission so the blocked labels are no longer valid *what is kept are parts of the discussion'. There is a lot of work being blocked off here under extranuous remarks of reference, with the others involved not making responses to something being blocked and all that.--DynEqMin (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Was not able to reply to the Talk page legal waffle yet again, whereas you wanted more talk on your page. Reqests for other users to discuss in context is the issue. Not my unclarity. As above if the block is not about contributions, then no need to be further personal as the work belongs to what are called SciCVN outlines and not to a single user. These can be commented on as they should not be misinterpreted in any way further to previous years of abuse. That refers to ISP work on peacekeeping and its references, not to be ridiculed as references. So your report is erring --DynEqMin (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are not allowed to edit any page but this while you are blocked. There is no "legal waffle" (I presume you mean "legal waffling") here: you have been blocked because you are unable to communicate in a coherent fashion. Nothing you have done here since being blocked has changed anyone's opinion about your ability to communicate coherently. Regarding the use of SciCVN as a source for any material here at Wikipedia, that will be impossible as SciCVN is not a reliable source. It appears to be one person's website in reaction to research performed at the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies (but it does not appear to be related to or endorsed by the SBI). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Completely unintelligible from the start, all this--DynEqMin (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)