| | |||||||
| Intention-Manifestation Manifesting intentions, law of attraction, vibrational harmony, synchronicities, luck, share your intentions, practice group manifesting |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #61 (permalink) | |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,613
| Quote:
I do believe that modern medicine works. It's not perfect, it has its limitations, but it works for a great many things. I'm actually quite glad I have attracted the availability of modern medicine into my reality; it certainly isn't available for everyone on this planet. | |
| | |
| | #62 (permalink) | ||
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,613
| Quote:
Quote:
Or even considered a much more limited question - "Is there a subjective reality?" | ||
| | |
| | #63 (permalink) | |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,613
| Quote:
1. It is not MERELY our duty to use our brains to comprehend reality. More precisely, the use of our brains is the ONLY way we can EVER comprehend reality. 2. Brains are used through thinking. Thoughts are subjective. Therefore whatever you can EVER comprehend reality to be, is merely your subjective comprehension. 3. To put it another way, anything Mrs Cogan has ever known, understood or believed about reality, is merely her own state of knowledge, understanding and belief. That is, states arising from her own (subjective) consciousness. If Mrs Cogan was a snail, her reality would change. If Mrs Cogan was Steve Pavlina, her reality would change. That is simply because none of the three think like each other. Even if Mrs Cogan sincerely believes that there is an objective reality, this is merely a belief, a product of her subjective consciousness. She cannot escape from this loop. Last edited by Acting Like Godot; 12-27-2007 at 12:38 AM. | |
| | |
| | #64 (permalink) |
| Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Birmingham(ish), England
Posts: 72
|
Mrs Cogan, there's plenty of literature out there that covers the scientific basis for IM and LoA. Quantum theory points towards a unifying field of energy that permeates the entire Universe, and has been shown to be affected by human thoughts, feelings and consciousness, meaning that we literally create the world around us. If you're curious about IM and LoA then don't feel you have to ditch your scientific mind and start adopting a load of unfounded 'new age' beliefs. I've enjoyed science my entire life, and to me one of the most exciting things about all this is that for the first time in history religion, spritualism and science all seem to be talking the same language. Pete |
| | |
| | #65 (permalink) |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,613
|
Those who are genuinely interested in understanding the science on the connection between reality and consciousness may want to check out the writings of Sir Roger Penrose. Roger Penrose OM, FRS is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. Penrose has been awarded many prizes for his contributions to science. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1972. In 1975, Stephen Hawking and Penrose were jointly awarded the Eddington Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1985, he was awarded the Royal Society Royal Medal. Along with Stephen Hawking, he was awarded the prestigious Wolf Foundation Prize for Physics in 1988. In 1989 he was awarded the Dirac Medal and Prize of the British Institute of Physics. In 1990 Penrose was awarded the Albert Einstein Medal for outstanding work related to the work of Albert Einstein by the Albert Einstein Society. In 1991, he was awarded the Naylor Prize of the London Mathematical Society. In 1994 he was knighted for services to science. In 1998, he was elected Foreign Associate of the United States National Academy of Sciences. In 2000 he was appointed to the Order of Merit. In 2004 he was awarded the De Morgan Medal for his wide and original contributions to mathematical physics. In 2005 Penrose was awarded an honorary doctorate (Honoris Causa) by Warsaw University and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and in 2006 by the University of York. His books include: The Emperor's New Mind (1989) Shadows of the Mind (1994) The Large, the Small and the Human Mind (1997) The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (2004) Last edited by Acting Like Godot; 12-27-2007 at 02:29 AM. |
| | |
| | #67 (permalink) | ||||
| Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 46
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So if Steve and the snail could share their findings they would each have a richer and more complete view of reality. Quote:
| ||||
| | |
| | #69 (permalink) | ||
| Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 46
| Quote:
Quote:
The universe is a wonderful place. It doesn't need our pixie dust to enhance its splendor. | ||
| | |
| | #70 (permalink) |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,613
|
Unfortunately the elephant doesn't exist, unless observed. Neither do the blind men. And that is the preferred interpretation by physicists such as Werner Heisenberg, Eugene Wigner, Amit Goswami, Fred Alan Wolf, William Tiller etc. Please refer to the Heisenberg quote I provided earlier. There are other interpretations, of course. You may prefer, for instance, Hugh Everitt's many-worlds theory, which, as of the 1990s, was the most popular interpretation among physicists. According to this theory, the reality in which you and your elephant exists is constantly splitting into more realities, and therefore you and your elephant currently exist in many different realities. It might be consistent with Everitt's theory to say that these are ALL objective realities, but somehow I suspect that you won't be very happy with the idea that there could be an infinite number of Mrs Cogans in an infinite number of different objective realities. The interpretation which comes closest to your belief in a single objective reality, dear Mrs Cogan, is probably the Bohm interpretation. This interpretation is formulated by David Bohm, one of the founding fathers of the atomic bomb. Unfortunately, this interpretation, breaching the principle of locality and coupled with quantum entanglement, means that your elephant, by twitching its nose or thinking a few elephantine thoughts in its brain, can instantaneously affect the behaviour of subatomic particles millions of miles away on the other side of the galaxy. (Okay I exaggerate - this effect does not take place instantaneously, but at the speed of light - and not any faster. However, the effect is not confined to merely elephantine thoughts. Consistent with Bohm's interpretation, if I think a few thoughts and therefore cause electrical impulses to move in my my brain, then at the speed of light I would be affecting every subatomic particle since the beginning of the universe which had ever collided with those particular moving electrons in my brain. This is not a possible, but a necessary, consequence following from the principle of quantum entanglement - famously referred to by Einstein as "spooky action at a distance"). By now, you may begin to realise that there is no objective reality, or that if there is, it is certainly not quite what you had imagined it to be. Einstein certainly felt that way. In a letter to Schrodinger in the 1950s (yes, Schrodinger of the notorious Schrodinger's cat), Einstein wrote: "You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality—if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established." Let me paraphrase that for you, dear Mrs Cogan. Einstein is saying that if you are an honest scientist, you will not deny that you are merely assuming that an objective reality exists. It is a risky assumption, because there is absolutely no proof, scientifically speaking, that such an objective reality does exist. Well, maybe by now, dear Mrs Cogan, you will begin to dislike Einstein, Heisenberg, Everitt, Bohm and all the others. To you, they might now even seem remarkably like fairies and demons. But they're just scientists, Mrs Cogan. And also remember this, Mrs Cogan, what you don't understand isn't therefore false. Your earlier comment that in physics, like repels like, and opposites attract, is true merely of, say, magnets. Certainly it isn't true of gravity, or resonance, or sympathetic vibration etc. That much should have been covered, even in your high school physics syllabus, Mrs Cogan. Last edited by Acting Like Godot; 12-27-2007 at 02:36 PM. |
| | |
| | #71 (permalink) | |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 22,520
| Quote:
The elephant and the blind men is a good example of a metaphor, by the way. Saying "You have to do this, you have to do that" is harder to see as the metaphor you claimed it was; perhaps you would like to tell us what that remark represents. Maybe you meant it was a manner of speaking rather than being a metaphor -- there was another example of that here in the boards earlier. For me, and I believe for others, being informed that "you have to do as I say," whether it's meant literally or otherwise, occurs as a mandate, like you are saying "you should do as I say" (it's for your own good!). I'm not a big fan of *shoulds*. It's like saying, my way is the right way and anybody who disagrees is wrong and must be shown what is right. It's not a manner of speaking, in my experience, that fosters freedom, understanding or love in conversation. That is why I was inviting you to try on an attitude of accepting without judgement what the folks are saying here. Accepting without judgement doesn't mean you have to believe as they do. Evaluation is still possible within acceptance! And of course, being right and making others wrong is something you and I are free to do, of course. I'll bet it's a road that leads to another sort of understanding for lots of people, myself included (you can probably see that's what I'm looking at for myself here by writing to you). You are naturally free to accept or decline my invitation; I just wanted you to understand that it was an invitation to escape from the loop. | |
| | |
| | #72 (permalink) |
| Family Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Toronto, Canuckland
Posts: 1,737
|
Heh, I was just photoreading Brian Tracy's Change your Thinking, Change your Life and came across something called psychosclerosis (which I also found in a book on meditation) which means the hardening of attitudes. I've noticed that unless I'm challenging myself to new ideas or doing something new or meeting new people, or really anything "new" I begin to fall prey to this psychosclerosis.
|
| | |
| | #73 (permalink) | |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 22,520
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #74 (permalink) | ||||||||
| Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 46
| Quote:
Quote:
------ Most physicists regard this theory as a non-scientific concept, claiming that it is experimentally unfalsifiable, and that it introduces unnecessary elements into physics, rather than simplifying. Wim De Muynck comments that The human observer is as dispensable in quantum mechanics as he (short for `he or she') is in classical mechanics. He sees only the macroscopic parts of his measuring instruments. In present-day practice of the physical science of the microscopic domain human observation is largely restricted to the tables and graphs that have been printed on the basis of data obtained by the scientists computer from a measuring instrument of which the measurement results are sent to the computer without any human interference. An influence like the reduction (collapse) of the wave packet, allegedly exerted by a human observer on a microscopic object by means of observation, would be equally miraculous as killing a fly by just looking at ones fly swatter. [5] --------- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What I don't understand is to be studied and understood. I have studied new age claptrap and I understand it is wishful thinking with a lot of bad pitfalls that Einstein warned about in his quote above. You will find out what kind of pitfalls if an elephant ever steps on you when you aren't looking. | ||||||||
| | |
| | #75 (permalink) | ||||
| Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 46
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Clearly you are made uncomfortable by the conflict of ideas and I'm sorry about that. But conversations like these spark learning and growth for all involved, even the lurkers, and I think they are valuable. Quote:
| ||||
| | |
| | #76 (permalink) |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,613
|
Hello Mrs Cogan: In this post, I will address your non-falsifiability point You have suggested effectively that that which cannot be falsifiable (that is, tested in accordance with the scientific method proposed by Karl Popper) should not be taken as "true" or "reliable". This isn't accurate (and in fact Karl Popper himself suggested no such thing). Numerous things in your reality are not falsifiable, but are not therefore "untrue" or "unreliable". For example, practically no theory or concept in: economics; psychology; linguistics; sociology; law; history; business administration; religion; human geography; music; art; political science; public administration; architecture etc etc etc is capable of being falsified (or scientifically tested) - however, it does not follow that all theories and concepts in: economics; psychology; linguistics; sociology; law; history; business administration; religion; human geography; music; art; political science; public administration; architecture etc etc etc are therefore "untrue" or "unreliable". Examples of non-falsifiable hypotheses would be: "Human life is precious" "Democracy is beneficial" "My mother has a great recipe for chicken stew" "Mozart possessed great musical talent" "ALG is a kind person" "Mrs Cogan is in love with Mr Cogan" .... none of the above can be scientifically tested, BUT it does not necessarily follow that all of the above are "untrue" or "unreliable". Perhaps more directly relevant is the point that what is falsifiable and what is not falsifiable also depends, to a large extent, on the stage to which science has progressed. For example, at various times in history, it would have been completely unscientific to assert any of the following: - "There are little invisible living organisms in milk which causes it to go bad" - "Radiation increases your risk of cancer" - "Sugar is made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen molecules." ... because at the relevant times in history, due to lack of scientific knowledge and/or technology, none of these hypotheses could have been tested (falsified). However, none of them were actually "false". You would be interested to note, however, that the theory that thought can affect reality is so wide in its implications, many of those implications CAN actually be tested (falsified). And some actually have. I had given various examples earlier ... .... and if you like, I can even email you a PDF copy of a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal concerning a double-blind experiment, testing the hypothesis that human thought can affect the molecular structure of water, even over a long distance (several thousands of miles). It was one of the most widely read papers in the scientific community in 2006, going by the number of times it was electronically downloaded by scientists. Sadly for obvious reasons, many scientists hesitate to associate themselves with such studies - essentially, there is the risk they would suffer repercussions. The same kind of repercussions that Nicolaus Copernicus suffered, when he insisted that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around. Anyway - I leave you with a final thought. And the thought is - you are terribly unscientific. You believe that an objective reality exists, when really there is no scientific proof of this. (If there is, please cite me the name of the great scientist who proved that an objective reality exists). "But, but .... such a thing is just not falsifiable!", I hear you protest. Exactly, Mrs Cogan. |
| | |
| | #77 (permalink) | |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,613
| Quote:
While Everitt's theory was addressing the question of the effect of an observation/measurement being made at the subatomic level, his theory says that the entire reality in which that observation/measurement is made splits ... not just some segment of it. In other words, say a scientist with a blue coat sitting on a red chair in a lab in America makes the measurement/observation of the subatomic event. According to Everitt's theory, it is not that some tiny segment of reality at the subatomic level splits into another reality. According to Everitt's theory, the entire reality - with scientist, blue coat, red chair, lab, America - splits. Scientist, blue coat, red chair, lab, America - all now exist in different realities at the same time. By now, you might think that this is either rocket science, or mystical voodoo. In either case, you might be right. Hugh Everitt indeed was a rocket scientist - at one point, specialising in nuclear missiles - and his theory turns out to be highly compatible with Seth's explanation of multi-dimensional reality (Seth allegedly being a non-physical being channeled from another dimension by a famous, now-deceased alleged psychic, Jane Roberts). I know that such similarities between (1) the cutting edge of science, and (2) metaphysical / religious / spiritual mumblings makes you worried and unhappy. Unfortunately, you REALLY can't get away from it. Occasionally it may smell to you of New Age nonsense attempting to use science to gain credibility, but surprisingly often, it is the other way around - that is, it's science hoping to discover new ground, by examining metaphysical / religious / spiritual mumblings. One example is how David Bohm (yes, yes, another one of those world-renowned, permanently revered, appears-in-every-high-school-physics-textbook, changed-the-entire-history-of-science type of scientist) constantly sought to discuss the nature of reality with the Indian spiritual leader J Krishnamurti (believe it or not, once widely believed in India to be the reincarnation of a buddha). The two men ended up maintaining a friendship that lasted over 20 years. | |
| | |
| | #78 (permalink) |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 1,935
|
@Acting: The reason LoA is Garbage, to those who don't believe it, is not because it is unscientific. It is Garbage, because they can't wave a magic wand and use it for their own pleasure without any effort. In other words, before Microwave Ovens were invented and commercialized, if you tried to tell people that you have found a way to heat up your food at a much faster rate than a traditional oven (using micro waves), they would say you're not scientific and they'd tell you to go back to watching Star Trek. It is only when you put something like this into a box, that you can purchase at Walmart for $50, plug it into the wall and click two buttons to warm up your food that people believe it to be true. In other words, the complaint is not "This is unscientific". The complaint is "I want a box for $50 where I punch in what I want, and what I want pops out, 100% of the time". Nobody wants a "technology" which requires them to change their thinking for something to happen. Most people are way too lazy to do that. Your research into LoA, much like mine, obviously goes well beyond high-school science, and is grounded in ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. I don't think anyone suffering from "LoA Unbelievatitis" will be convinced by scientific "proof". THe only way they'll ever convince themselves that it's real is by experimenting themselves and getting it to work. Once it works for them, it will fry their brain, change their whole perception of reality, and then they'll run to the book stores and start researching how the heck it's possible that such a thing can exist without it totally "breaking reality". If I teleported a scientist from 300 years ago forward in time to today and wanted to prove to him that microwaves exist, I would show him my microwave, put some food in it and warm it up first. Let him eat the warm food and experience it. Only once he saw it with his own eyes and felt it, would I explain to him in "scientific terms" how the thing works, because now his mind wouldn't be thinking "Is this guy lying to me? Why should I believe this? What if it's a lie?" while I'm talking. His mind would now be "How the heck does this work? How COULD this be true?" I think that's the first step. Getting to the point where you experience LoA in action. THen it totally stumps you. THEN you go looking for an explanation. This is what Steve did. Wisdom through experience. This is what I did. Wisdom through experience. This is what You did. Wisdom through experience. See the pattern? Maybe LOA shouldn't be explained to people at first. Maybe they should be told to just think positive thoughts and visualize thing because it activates the "Reticular Activating System" and makes them more "motivated" to "work hard" in life or something. Maybe telling people that LoA is based on the Universe giving people what they want is too unbelievable for them before they experience results. |
| | |
| | #79 (permalink) | |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,613
| Quote:
(A) perception of a thing; and (B) the mental interpretation of that perception. Among other things, we will investigate sensory deprivation; the reticular activating cortex; quantum physics (again); how the different types and capabilities of the senses of different animals (including human beings) affect their respective realities; ... and in the near future I will also write another post in that thread addressing (B) in greater detail, by reference to Harvard's Prof Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. | |
| | |
| | #80 (permalink) | |||||
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 22,520
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
| |||||
| | |
| | #81 (permalink) | |
| Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 98
| Quote:
The other experiments you mentioned in your previous post in defence of IM, I found to be pseudoscience, or probably explainable due to psychology. The most convincing seemed to be the Emoto's water experiment, but the main scientific complaint against him seems to be that he gave his photographers leeway in choosing whatever pictures seemed best representative, hence BIAS. (see Wikipedia for this information on this guy, he even denies that he is a scientist, a sceptic has offered 1 MILLION DOLLARS to anyone who can replicate Emoto's "experiment" in a more scientific experimental design). That said, I very much doubt there will EVER be ANY scientific proof for a concept like IM, it requires a LEAP OF FAITH (see Kierkegaard's existentialist philosophy of religion). | |
| | |
| | #82 (permalink) |
| Family Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Toronto, Canuckland
Posts: 1,737
|
If I'm not mistaken, it is called Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation, by Dean Radin. It was published in the Explore Journal, about which I have no information.
|
| | |
| | #83 (permalink) | ||
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,613
| Quote:
Double-blind test of the effects of distant intention on water crystal formation. Quote:
The bias you mentioned was removed in the replicated experiment. Firstly, the photographer is not allowed to know whether he is taking photos of the water samples which had been subject to thought, or whether he is taking photos of water samples from the control group (no one had thought anything about those samples). Secondly, the judges who judge the photos on aesthetic appeal ("positive" thoughts, so the hypothesis goes, create water crystals of higher aeshetic appeal) are not allowed to know whether the photos came from the water samples which had been subject to thought, or whether they came from the control group. There were 2,000 thinkers; a total of 1,500 water samples; and 100 judges of the photos. The hypothesis was supported by the experimental results at the (statistical) confidence level of 99.9%, meaning that there was a 0.01% chance that it was a statistical fluke. Last edited by Acting Like Godot; 12-29-2007 at 02:23 AM. | ||
| | |
| | #84 (permalink) |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,613
|
And meanwhile folks, I'm reading about another area - the research of Professor Brian Josephson! (He was the Nobel Prize winner for physics in 1973 - as you can see, I am partial to the ideas of world-renowned scientists). And Brian Josephson's current research area is telepathy. |
| | |
| | #85 (permalink) | ||||||
| Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 46
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What I was saying above is that you were confusing me. I couldn't tell what you were talking about. What I meant by "you need to provide an example. I don't know what you are talking about" is "If you want me to understand you, then you need to provide an example." You resumed calling me names and didn't provide an example. Ok. That's your right. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
| ||||||
| | |
| | #86 (permalink) |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 22,520
|
hey, mrscogan, I didn't call you a name, I referred to your Bossy Boots style of communication. Not the same thing, as someone of your precise thinking is surely aware. And the Bossy Boots style of communication is one I don't want to spend any time around, so hasta la vista, sista! Have fun! |
| | |
| | #87 (permalink) | |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,613
| Quote:
For example, in quantum physics, take Hugh Everitt's "Many Worlds" interpretation, or the Bohm interpretation. or the "Consciousness Causes Collapse" interpretation. These theories are phenomenological. In other words, they were not developed by scientists having too much idle time and therefore just sitting around having a nice daydream or launching ideas for a fantasy novel. What happened is that actual experimental results were observed first, and they could not be explained by then-existing scientific knowledge. So the scientists have to develop phenomenological theories to explain the actual experimental results. In case the distinction is still not clear, let me illustrate. Suppose I say, 'Theoretically, if a pig could grow wings, and the wings were strong enough, then the pig could fly." This is NOT a phenomenological theory. Simply because there are no flying pigs on earth (as far as I am aware). But suppose one day, the most bizarre thing happens. A bunch of scientists are in a lab. Suddenly a flying pig is seen! It flies round and round the lab, several times; allows itself to be examined by the scientists etc; flaps its wings and soars off 100 metres into the sky; returns again and allows itself to be examined by the scientists Now there is an actual phenomenon. There is an actual flying pig. The scientists now have to develop phenomenological theories to explain why and how the pig managed to grow wings. All the theories sound weird, implausible, strange, mysterious ...... but what do you expect?! This is a flying pig! This is what has happened in the lab (regarding the collapse of the wavefunction). In quantum physics, the phenomenon has already happened. The results can be replicated in the lab, any time, again and again, as many times as you like. The scientists' job is therefore to explain these results, and the best they have been able to do is offer theories like the Many Worlds theory, the Bohm interpretation, the "Consciousness Causes Collapse" theory etc. There are different theories (about five or six in total) but whatever theory you prefer, none are consistent with what we usually regard as "objective reality". This is what frightens people like Mrs Cogan, and this is why they will claim to be of a scientific bent, and yet prefer not to delve too much into what science is really telling them. | |
| | |
| | #88 (permalink) | ||||||||
| Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 46
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Radiation poisoning was tested before it was known about. Both Marie Curie and her husband died of it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
| ||||||||
| | |
| | #89 (permalink) |
| Member Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43
|
Mrs Cogan, First and foremost, I'd like to say "what's poppin?". Apparently thats the cool way to greet people now a days, more commonly used amongst the hip hop/street crowd, although I do not consider myself hip hop or street, I do find the phrase humorous, therefor I say it. Basically, I believe that we're on the verge of a massive change in this world. Actually I don't really believe that... I know it. I can feel it in me and I can see it when I look around. The world is changing, something is happening all over. This feeling inside of me is not something I've had all of my life, and it's not something that science can explain. Science is a good tool to understand lots of this physical world. But there is always a place where science ends, where it can no longer explain something. The science road always comes to an end somewhere. It's the point when you have to stop looking for proof and scientific evidence to support you and your beliefs. It's the end of the diving board and it's the place where you have to take a breath, shut your eyes, and step off. It's basically fully trusting in yourself. Not needing to "prove" everything to understand it and believe it. Taking it on faith. Not faith in some white bearded whacky god who exists outside of creation in a nice safety net of white clouds, but faith in ourselves. Faith that we will find the way and the right answers. And this faith derives from a feeling inside of us. That same feeling I explained earlier. The feeling that there is something else. This feeling and just a plain "knowing" that science can't explain. I understand that you are 60+ years old. That is 60 years of life on this planet. That is impressive, I must say! That is also 60 years of holding onto vast amounts of beliefs about reality, existence, and life in general. I can see why it's not quite so easy for you to grasp the concept that you create your reality, after living for 60 years believing we live in a fully objective world where science rules every function of our lives and we just have to make due with whatever comes our way, I wouldn't want to listen to abunch of "new agers" sayin' that we create our own realities and that whatever pain/happiness/lack/abundence we experience is just that which we have brought to ourselves. In fact, at 60, looking back through my lifetime of love, loss, sadness, pain, happiness, I think I might be a little insulted hearing that I brought most of it to me! So I understand! But a plain and simple fact is, no matter how hard you try and convince me that it's not true, you won't be able to. Because I know it is. Not because I read Steve's blog, or LoA books, but because I experience it in my life all the time. I've had experiences that science can never explain (out of body experiences, knowing what people are going to say before they say it, intending for something and receiving it, hell I intended money the other day and received a 250 check in the mail that got me out of debt plus 20 bucks). This experience is what proves this to me. Even when I get into arguments with family members during Christmas, I look back at what I was thinking during those times and sure enough I was thinking "Oh man, here it comes she's gonna start a fight with me over something." Now you may say that I just know my family pretty well, but would that fight have started had I not thought that? If I were thinking "Oh here comes mom! Let's have a great day together", would that fight have started? Who knows. Who knows. There's going to come a point, hopefully, if you allow yourself to see this, that you realize that everything in existence is made of the same exact stuff. Everything is made of the same one substance. Once you realize that you realize that everything in existence is just an expression of that substance, including you, including me. And yes SCIENCE can prove this, that everything is made of the same stuff. Einstein attempted to prove it back in the day. Einstein. One of the smartest minds of our time believed everything was ONE. He even said that if he was religious he would be Buddhist (where they believe that everything is ONE and that ONE is the purest essence of everything). Basically our society kind've sucks. The folks in charge don't exactly want the population to know this info, because well, then they wouldn't have the power they do. That's a whole other discussion, but basically, everyone's been fed abunch of lies and distractions (look at the mindless crap on television, just to keep the mind distracted, keep us from thinking too much) to keep us all from finding the truth, which is that we create our own realities and that we are all in fact one, and that ONE is in fact God. That's the truth. Straight up. Take it or leave it. I know it's the truth because I experienced it in my own life, and I don't need you to believe it for me to believe it. I want you to believe it so you can live a better, more fuller life, for you. Because we're one. And as expressions of that one, it's our right to live life to the fullest that we can, and this is an essential tool to do that. Look at the tools you are given. Let's say you had a paint brush, some paint and a canvas. These tools point to you being a painter. You have imagination to create the painting. Now look at the tools you were given at birth. Sight. Hearing. Taste. Touch. Smell. And imagination. The first 5 deal with experience. This tools show us that we're meant to experience life, right? To see it, to hear it, to taste it, to touch it, to smell it....all of those combine to form a feeling of the experience, correct? Well why do we have imagination? The ability to create whatever we want, at will, in our minds? Literally, whatever you want to create you can in your imagination. Why is that? |
| | |
| | #90 (permalink) |
| Member Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43
|
Yo baby doll, I think you should use some psychedelic drugs. Just a suggestion. I smoked salvia before (its legal and you can buy it in stores) and oh man, I swear to god I was transported to another dimension with these crazy beings all around me. It's nuts! Or eat some mushrooms. Those things will do you wonders, definitely make you question alot. Oh yeah, and Mrs Cogan, go listen to some Beatles, or Van Morrison's enlightenment CD. This is not some new thing. Folks have been saying all this for a long time now. It's not to late to change your life! Last edited by tbushmoney; 12-29-2007 at 03:41 AM. |
| | |
| Bookmarks |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
| | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| maybe dad's afraid of letting go | soccer7 | Personal Effectiveness | 5 | 03-22-2007 02:05 PM |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:11 PM.




