Positive Thinking and Reality Manipulation

[Swami]

I recently shifted from engineering to sales as a way to stretch myself as it is so foreign to my way of thinking and personality.

An upbeat coworker commented the other day that we would each score three sales that day. I harumped as closing the sale takes some skill and personal charimsa, yet landing a customer in this stage is largely a matter of luck.

CW: "Swami, why must you be so negative?"

SW: "I cannot affect how many customers will visit today. I am just being a realist."

CW: "I fail to understand you." *walks off in a huff*

At the end of the day: Swami sells two gizmos and CW sells none. Gotta love positive attitude.

[Neo_shaman-evolution]

Creating your reality, the first step is realizing that there is no external, reality does not lie outside of yourself,thus manipulating your daily life lies in the fact that there is nothing to control because there is no "other" dependence on the other creates a segragative conscienceness, creating egocentric fear or control emotional issues, losing the concept of control will create your daily life as you feel and wish, metaquatumfy the actions or possible movements of conscienceness of thought.

[Dna]

Pardon?

[Physical Necessity]

Originally posted by Neo_shaman-evolution:
Creating your reality, the first step is realizing that there is no external realityThe realization that there is no external reality? I think that might be presumptious in that the basics of our relationship with nature and reality imply that there is an external reality.

I am the first to proclaim that there is no true seperation beyond arbitary distinctions between the system that is ourselves and the environment in which we exist, and also that we have great oppurtunities to develop and transform our interpretations of reality, as well as the meaning that applies soley to ourselves.

But I would not go as far as to state that an external reality does not exist. Certainly, without consciousness, an external reality is not perceived, but all evidence derived from our society, our science and its applications, our communications, and our senses makes it rather evident that our mind is not manifesting reality (rather, that our mind is a manifestation of reality ;) )

PN

[daniel]

PN,

Congrats on your first, quite nice, post!

[imported_saoirse]

Daniel and friends - have you checked out Peter Kingsley's "Reality"? I haven't gotten around to it yet, but it has been highly recommended. I did read an interview in the most recent 'Parabola' between him and Christopher Bamford which was very enligtening:

http://www.peterkingsley.org/

[imported_saoirse]

Manning - the article is in the most recent edition of Parabola. i posted it below.

With regard to the "knowing beyond knowing" idea, this is definitely something I have been intuiting that i need to work on, as i have a tendency to read too much rather than to actually put what i've read into practice. I think this is a particular temptation to those of us who attempt to follow the path of Christianity, given the two thousand years worth of theological and mystical writings that abound. It is much easier to read about God than to actually come to know God through the unconditional loving of God's Creation. peace, Kevin

Presiently, this is today's Gospel in the Church's liturgical calender:

March 14,2006,Tuesday of the Second Week of Lent

Gospel
Mt 23:1-12

Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying,
“The scribes and the Pharisees
have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you,
but do not follow their example.
For they preach but they do not practice.
They tie up heavy burdens hard to carry
and lay them on people’s shoulders,
but they will not lift a finger to move them.
All their works are performed to be seen.
They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,
greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation ‘Rabbi.’
As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’
You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
Call no one on earth your father;
you have but one Father in heaven.
Do not be called ‘Master’;
you have but one master, the Christ.
The greatest among you must be your servant.
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled;
but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

http://www.usccb.org/index.shtml
--------------

http://www.parabola.org/magazine/current_excerpt.php4

COMMON SENSE
An interview with Peter Kingsley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over 2,500 years ago, Peter Kingsley tells us, Parmenides and Empedocles laid the most basic foundations for the world and culture we now live in. Kingsley's original and groundbreaking work has brought back to life, and Over 2,500 years ago, Peter Kingsley tells us, made accessible again, the extraordinary mystical tradition that lies forgotten at the roots of the Western world. His connection to the teachings of these two nearly forgotten figures is immediate and palpable. Kingsley has rediscovered the original meaning and sacred purpose underlying our civilization and is committed to transmitting this ancient teaching to us now. His first book, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition was published by Oxford University Press in 1995 and, like his later books In the Dark Places of Wisdom and Reality, broadly hailed as gripping, urgent, unique, pioneering, courageous, original, challenging, learned, and enthralling. These same qualities were very much in evidence as he spoke with Parabola editors Christopher Bamford and Lorraine Kisly about our theme in New York last fall.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parabola: Living in this culture, we can't avoid the idea that the senses are lying to us. Physics tells us that we see only a small spectrum of what's there, for example, and from the East there drifts vaguely the notion of maya, that all the world is illusion; and so we've lost faith in our senses. But at the same time when one meets developed human beings one is struck by their quality of being embodied, and their senses are wide awake. So do the senses lie or do they bring us to the truth?

Peter Kingsley: Parmenides and Empedocles lived just before the time in Western history when, with Plato and the influence of Aristotle's disciples, we start to get the general notion that the senses lie. And because of this idea they were completely misunderstood.

P: So this is not a new idea.

PK: No, no. It's implicit even before Plato, and later Greek philosophers formulate it very clearly: the senses are liars.
Now Empedocles also begins his teaching poem by saying that the senses lead people astray. And so does Parmenides before him. But people don't really read what they say. Instead they think: well, Parmenides and Empedocles tell us the senses are unreliable therefore we have to find truth through some other means.

It sounds very logical. The trouble is Empedocles and Parmenides never said that. What they said is that the senses as we know them are unreliable, because we were never taught how to use them. Empedocles in particular was very specific. He explained that our senses are still closed. For him, we humans are plants: human plants. Actually we are seeds and have not yet become plants. We have not budded yet, have not yet started to open and blossom. We have the potential to become full human beings but the potential has not been realized. And I find this amazing and terrifying, that someone 2,500 years ago--someone who was laying the foundations for all our philosophical and scientific disciplines--said we're not yet human, because what he said then applies just as much to us today.

P: We humans are unfinished.

PK: Well, unstarted. We're unstarted business. There have been over 2,000 years of supposed progress and it's still the same. Both Parmenides and Empedocles in their poems deliver devastating critiques of the human condition, and anyone who reads them superficially might conclude that they don't hold out much hope for humankind. To be sure, they said our senses are unreliable but that's only the beginning. As I explain in great detail in Reality, both actually gave a whole system of exercises: very specific training programs, yoga techniques, meditation practices. These practices are still there in the Greek texts from the dawn of Western culture and they are based on teaching us how to come to our senses. How to allow our senses to open, like buds.

P: It would seem that the practices have to be those that allow us to realize that what is unfinished is the cosmos--because if the human is unfinished the whole cosmos is unfinished.

PK: Absolutely. The usual idea we have is that meditation is to enlighten us, make us better, give us peace, or whatever. But for these people, meditation is not for oneself. It is an act of service for the sake of the cosmos. The purpose wasn't to get something out of it. It was to attune oneself to the cosmos for the sake of the cosmos. I suspect that in traditional shamanic cultures this is implicit. But in the West, we've somehow become so individualized that we think it's for us.

It is for the sake of the cosmos and it has to do with the senses. It all comes back to the senses.

The Platonic tradition has been deeply ingrained in us: this is a world of multiplicity and if we want to find Oneness we have to look elsewhere--we have to go inside, transcend, come to another level of reality, step up the hierarchy. The One is up there and we're down here. But if Oneness is up there you have already created a duality by placing it somewhere else. Empedocles and Parmenides both show us that the idea of leaving multiplicity and movement behind so as to find oneness and peace is based on a misunderstanding. What they both say is that while there seems to be a world of movement, a world which is not one, if you start to use your senses consciously you will come to perceive stillness in the middle of movement. Not by turning away from movement, because even to turn away from movement creates movement, but if you really are in the now there is total stillness. And that stillness has to be realized through the senses.

The key here is that we believe we are sense-perceptive beings, that we are oriented to the senses if we like fast cars and enjoy ice cream. However, Empedocles explains that we don't use our senses but instead are used by them. He says quite specifically we are dragged along by them, that the art is how to use the senses rather than be used by them.

This requires very subtle changes in our consciousness where instead of letting the senses just bombard us with data and carry us along, we actually turn our attention back to face what is coming toward us.

P: What you say about turning back our attention reminds me of ta'wil in Islamic tradition, the returning of phenomena back to their source.

PK: Yes, and it's also found in Taoist exercises as well as particular strands of Buddhism. This passage from Han Shan describes beautifully what happens when you actually put the teachings of Parmenides and Empedocles into practice:

As one coming suddenly out of darkness, I perceived the full meaning of the doctrine of immutability and said: "Now I can believe that fundamentally all things neither come nor go." I got up from my meditation bed, prostrated myself before the Buddha shrine and did not have the perception of anything in motion. I lifted the blind and stood in front of the stone steps. Suddenly the wind blew through the trees in the courtyard and the air was filled with flying leaves which, however, looked motionless. I said to myself: "This is the whirlwind which will destroy Mount Sumeru and which is permanently still." When I went to the back yard to make water, the urine seemed not to be running. I said: "That is why the river pours but does not flow." Thereafter all my doubts about life and death vanished.

It's fascinating to see how Empedocles and Parmenides explain things just as clearly as this man but scholars have mistranslated and even altered the Greek texts because they have no frame of reference, either intellectual or experiential, for understanding what they are saying. This process of mistranslation is incredibly significant because it's on the basis of such misunderstandings that our Western civilization has been founded. To cite just one vivid example: right at the start of his esoteric teaching poem Empedocles tells his student that "if you press my words down underneath your dense-packed diaphragm," in other words if you breathe them in deeply into your belly, then they will stay with you and they will grow and they will change you. This description of words as seeds, just like in the Parable of the Sower, and of pressing them down as you would press seeds into the earth, is perfectly consistent with his agricultural imagery. But even though the meaning of his words is very clear, over and over scholars mistranslate Empedocles as saying "if you press my words into your crowded brain"--as if our brains were not full enough already! If you know something of yoga it makes perfect sense. You have to breathe in Empedocles' words, you have to let them transform you.

P: It seems necessary to quiet the mind so the words will stay below and germinate and have an action. The idea that openness to the senses brings stillness, that the way to this stillness is through the senses being active instead of turned off, is a surprising one.

PK: Much of Theravada Buddhism is based on awareness of the moment through our senses, but the crucial difference is that in those Buddhist practices you are still focused on what you are doing. Here, it is to be open everywhere. The beauty of this tradition is that we are given everything we need already. We don't need anything else.

It's very economical. We start with our own senses, it's a completely organic process and there's nothing to learn, no need for a mantra or some discipline imposed from outside. Parmenides and Empedocles spoke about metis, a quality of very fluid awareness which we all possess and is aware of everything that's going on without any effort. And what we approach here is common sense--the real common sense, where by being aware through all our senses together we merge with the infinite stillness all around us.

P: Is this an empty awareness? To achieve this purer sense-perceiving do we need to empty our consciousness? Usually we label things: we don't follow the bird in flight, but shoot it down.

PK: Even simpler than emptiness, this is an openness that gives birth to the silence. It's actually a tremendous act of humility just to listen, to sense, to receive. It's a totally simple presence--natural and rare. To perceive that you are perceiving, aware of yourself seated on a chair, seeing and hearing and feeling together--that is the original meaning of the expression common sense. And Aristotle, God bless him, sent the whole thing in the wrong direction when he proudly insisted that of course we're aware that we are aware, of course we perceive that we perceive. He didn't see how rare this state really is, because he was thinking rather than looking.

He didn't see how we go off to sleep. And weÔve been in this sleep for over two thousand years.

P: You write that we have traveled very far out on the arc into knowledge and action and that we have to return to this contact with stillness in movement. But has it all been a waste? Has anything been learned or gained?

PK: Every civilization comes into existence and lasts a few hundred or thousand years and then dies. We think we are different, but I'm sure the Babylonians felt the same way and the Egyptians and the Romans. Every culture is a certain experiment. Civilizations don't just happen. As Rumi says, look back to the origin of every science and culture and you will find revelation or divine guidance at their source. We reject revelation in favor of reason, but what we have forgotten is that reason and logic are themselves gifts from the gods and have a sacred purpose. At the beginning of the Western world it was understood and taught that before you can start to learn chemistry or biology or astronomy or anything else you have to learn to breathe consciously, you have to learn a certain quality of attention and respectfulness. That is what Empedocles and other ancient teachers tell us. Reason, logic, the scientific disciplines, were all brought into existence from another world into this one as divine gifts and with certain warning labels attached: before attempting this, read the manual.

Learn common sense, what it really is. Learn that everything given you is to serve a cosmic purpose.

So has this been a failed experiment? I don't think it's right to talk in terms of failure or success. What I do know is there is a certain quality of consciousness that appears at the beginning of civilizations which has to come back and be present at the end of civilizations. To me it is quite obvious that this is the end of a certain period in world history. We're going through a period of huge transition from what used to be Western culture into something new. And now a certain stock-taking is needed. A return to the essence is required. The essence of each civilization needs to be carried consciously from the past into the present for the sake of the future. The legacy of the West, its true legacy, is a tradition now calling out to be redeemed. The spiritual impulse that originally gave rise to our Western culture is still present in its genes, its DNA; and if we ignore this impulse I think we are doomed. We will walk into the future empty-handed. There is a sacred purpose behind this culture and if we forget it we can import every other spiritual tradition in the world but nothing will make up for the dying, shriveling roots of our own culture.

P: Why in this process are humans able, or called upon, to serve more than any other creature or plant? It's frequently pointed out that animals have senses far more acute than ours, so what's special about what a human being can bring?

PK: Everything in existence is crying out for a particular quality of consciousness that only humans can give. This doesn't mean we are superior to nature, only that there's an incredible need for a certain cooperation. The famous mystic Rudolph Steiner has said that for the agricultural process to happen, for seeds and plants and trees to grow, birdsong is absolutely essential. This is a beautiful truth that very few people know. But we also need to take what he said one stage further, because birds call and sing not only to quicken the plants: they also call to awaken the human seed that we are. They are actually singing for our sake as well. If we can start to listen to them, really listen, they will draw us into this greater consciousness I have been talking about. They will be our teachers, because outer nature is able to point us to our inner nature.

P: The birds are calling us, but what exactly are we called to?

PK: We are called to be there. When we can listen to what the birds have to say, to what nature has to say, and when we perceive the beauty of nature, then we are completing the circle and returning this physical world to its source through our own consciousness.

P: St. Paul speaks of all of creation groaning in travail and pain until now, awaiting the revelation of the children of God. So the whole cosmos depends on human beings coming once again to find this sense of service, of cosmic and divine service that Empedocles and the founders of our tradition had, but which is lost.

PK: The mention of groaning is significant. The epidemic of depression sweeping Western culture stems from this pain of the earth. When depression touches us there is a sense of shame: we want to go away and hide. But really it's not we, as individuals, who get depressed. Our depression is creation's depression. And so there is a very fine line where, ultimately, if we are able to stay conscious then even to be depressed can be an act of service. This, too, is a process of redemption.

P: Your orientation is fundamentally different because to take up our tradition is to realize that we are here for the sake of the cosmos and to realize what this means. Awareness is not for its own sake, to make me more aware, to improve me. In a sense we are called to embody love for the world.

PK: Yes. It's love for the world, love of the world. It comes from the world and we're just there to give it back to the world. And the senses are the sacramental instruments that we've been given. It's all here. Here we have everything we need--we don't have to go looking for extraordinary rituals. We are just given, everywhere, right now. Every sound is an opportunity to be conscious. It's the cosmos calling.

P: Rilke wrote about the silence at the crossroads of the senses. Amid all the gifts we are given we are asked to give back attention. And attention at every moment, not just from time to time. So there is a constant call to give our attention to the world?

PK: Yes, everything is calling to us. These senses that we believe we know and use are in fact divine powers. Through them we can serve the cosmos, but if we don't they work against us. This is something the Greeks understood very well: divine gifts can be a blessing but also a curse. There is no safe ground, no neutrality. We are called to a certain responsibility. As human beings we've been given something divine, meaning something intensely mysterious and real, and we can't hand it back.

[ March 14, 2006, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: saoirse ]

[imported_saoirse]

me too. i have been avoiding the reality of my boring job all morning. if only i didn't have this internet connection/crackpipe sitting on my desk... peace, kevin

[Swami]

Recent large-scale medical studies have shown NO correlation between attitude and survival in cancer patients - NONE!

Yet this myth persists with zero evidence to support it.

[Physical Necessity]

Originally posted by Swami:
[QB]Recent large-scale medical studies have shown NO correlation between attitude and survival in cancer patients - NONE!And what of the correlation between attitude and the experience of life? :D

I'm in no manner proposing that delusion is ever warranted, so I would not find value in thinking "I am going to survive", when one simply does not know that one will, but having a proper attitude such as "There is a possibillity that I might die, just as there is every day, regardless of the cause, but yet I still have my present state of being, my experience of life, and it shall not be affected, lessened, or degraded by anything".

Not to state, either, that positive affirmation does not have its place in the formation of our personalities, but stating "I am comfortable in situations involving strangers" isn't the same as "I am cured of cancer", as one concerns a dynamic process that our mind creates, and the other is a physical situation that the mind does not effect (as far as we can demonstrate... as you have said... recent studies show no correlation ;) )

PN

[willoweyes]

Swami, I would be interested to learn a little more about the methodology of your study--it must have been difficult to infallibly determine the "attitude" of a large number of cancer patients--do you have any references for your newsbreak, or did you hear it on talk radio?

[Swami]

Swami, I would be interested to learn a little more about the methodology of your study
Your sarcastic response denotes no interest whatsoever.

--it must have been difficult to infallibly determine
Too bad you fail to apply the same sort of critical acumen when it comes to Atlantis, Mayan prophecy, white magick or crop circles.

do you have any references for your newsbreak,
Of course.

In a Canadian study, women with metastatic breast cancer randomized to receive group psychosocial support did not survive any longer than women who were not in a support group, although they had an improved mood and some had less perceived pain.(Goodwin, NEJM 2001 345:1719-1726)

web page (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/beat-reporting/works/marcus8.html)

Feb. 9, 2004 -- Despite the popular belief that being optimistic may improve cancer survival, new research finds that attitude plays no role in survival outcome -- at least when it comes to advanced lung cancer.

web page (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/82/97082.htm)

Australian researchers report patients with a positive attitude fared no better than their less-upbeat peers, leading them to suggest that doctors who encourage cancer patients to remain hopeful following a diagnosis may be doing more harm than good.

web page (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3029)

A positive mental attitude does not improve a cancer patient's chances of survival, UK researchers say. Their conclusion is based on a detailed review of 28 studies that investigated the way in which people cope with their illnesses.

The few studies that have found a relationship between a fighting spirit and a better long-term prognosis were small-scale or flawed, say the scientists, led by Mark Petticrew of the MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit in Glasgow, UK.

They admit such a link is "biologically plausible" and widely believed by doctors and patients, but say there is very little scientific basis for it.

or did you hear it on talk radio?
Is this the sort of mature, enlightened inquiry that psychedelic usage brings forth?

[Rob P]

"The few studies that have found a relationship between a fighting spirit and a better long-term prognosis were small-scale or flawed, say the scientists, led by Mark Petticrew of the MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit in Glasgow, UK.

They admit such a link is "biologically plausible" and widely believed by doctors and patients, but say there is very little scientific basis for it."

Swami- this completely refutes the rest of the study!

But who would want to start a controversy right?

It's easier to publish the 'facts' and put it in a few papers
so that cynical people can find some comfort in
knowing that there are others out there like them.

thanks for the tip....
r o b

[willoweyes]

Disabusing Swami

Swami, I displayed all the classic signs of an adrenaline rush as I contemplated my response to your post. Green sparks shot out of my fingertips.

Let's do this section by section.

(Swami, I would be interested to learn a little more about the methodology of your study)
Your sarcastic response denotes no interest whatsoever.

I swear before the Earth Mother that I was very interested. How can I convince you?

--(it must have been difficult to infallibly determine)
Too bad you fail to apply the same sort of critical acumen when it comes to Atlantis, Mayan prophecy, white magick or crop circles.

"Infallibly" is the key here, Swami. And I spend little time considering the theories you have just mentioned.

I am actually "here" because I am interested in: the nature of awareness, "I and Thou" , plants and animals, and changing form.

(do you have any references for your newsbreak),
Of course.
In a Canadian study, women with metastatic breast cancer randomized to receive group psychosocial support did not survive any longer than women who were not in a support group, although they had an improved mood and some had less perceived pain.(Goodwin, NEJM 2001 345:1719-1726)

Metastatic breast cancer is a death sentence, and these women knew it. This could hardly be considered testing the efficacy of a positive attitude. Also, we are all laboring here under a death sentence--time is short, and Time is relative. Surely time spent with less "perceived" pain, and an improved mood, would be worth more on the open market than painful, depressed time?

Feb. 9, 2004 -- Despite the popular belief that being optimistic may improve cancer survival, new research finds that attitude plays no role in survival outcome -- at least when it comes to advanced lung cancer.

Advanced lung cancer--just as invariably fatal as spreading breast cancer.

Australian researchers report patients with a positive attitude fared no better than their less-upbeat peers, leading them to suggest that doctors who encourage cancer patients to remain hopeful following a diagnosis may be doing more harm than good.

"remaining hopeful may do more harm than good" Huh? (since their own studies appeared to reveal that hopeful people did not die sooner).? I don't understand.

A positive mental attitude does not improve a cancer patient's chances of survival, UK researchers say. Their conclusion is based on a detailed review of 28 studies that investigated the way in which people cope with their illnesses.
The few studies that have found a relationship between a fighting spirit and a better long-term prognosis were small-scale or flawed, say the scientists, led by Mark Petticrew of the MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit in Glasgow, UK.
They admit such a link is "biologically plausible" and widely believed by doctors and patients, but say there is very little scientific basis for it.

I'd have to see their methodology as well, I'm afraid. And as the inimitable Rob P pointed out above, this actually casts doubt upon your "proven" conclusion.

(or did you hear it on talk radio?)
Is this the sort of mature, enlightened inquiry that psychedelic usage brings forth

Actually, if you will observe carefully, you will note that psychedelic drug usage seems to bring forth opinions such as "It's all good!" or "I am One with the cosmos!" I view these attitudes with extreme suspicion and disfavor.

My own viperish tongue I credit to inclination, and gin and tonic.

[ March 16, 2006, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: willoweyes ]

[willoweyes]

Damn, I messed up my whole post because I'm a dummy on the computer. How do you people get quotes to appear in italics? And erase something already posted?

[ March 16, 2006, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: willoweyes ]

[Dna]

In these studies, some cancer patients were selected to be part of positive-thinking groups and others were not. What makes us think that people in these groups are likely to be any more positive.

Just because I go around with an inane smile and fill out progress questionnaires in a manner that panders to the aspirations of the researchers, doesn't mean I am fundamentally changed.

I would like to see a large scale study where the mental health of patients, among other traits, was correlated with survival times.

These studies are, I think, potentially flawed. The idea that sticking someone in some kind of a counselling group is going to make them survive any longer is perhaps going to make people happier as they are dying, but it isn't going to effect the profound changes that I imagine would be necessary for a cure, or at least an extension of life.

Dna.

[willoweyes]

Manning, thank you.

[Swami]

It is fine to question these studies, yet I have rarely witnessed the same sort of doubt among fluffernauts when it comes to the alleged power of prayer, visualization, affirmations and other useless means of attemtping to bend the laws of nature or to command reality by merely talking to oneself or beseeching some non-existent entity.

A solid plan, discipline, understanding and specific directed action is the only demonstrable means of making dreams happen.

[ March 16, 2006, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Swami ]

[Rob P]

.......
Swami-
Your box must be a little tight....
or maybe just try putting half of your foot in your mouth...
r o b
.......

[Swami]

Interesting (and predictable) that not one discussion here has yet failed to produce an ad hominem or personalism from those who see themselves as more advanced. This is not discussion or an exchange of ideas.

As one loving being succinctly put it: "We are all one, except for you." This attitude seems to permeate this board. If one does not accept the prevalent attitude, then one is subject to attack?

Just drive away anyone with a different perspective to make yourselves feel better.

[Dna]

I haven't attacked you and you are entitled to your opinion.

Dna.

[willoweyes]

Swami, I'm not trying to drive you away. Indeed, I felt a pleasurable sense of stimulation this morning as I considered my answer to your post.

[Rob P]

here's a little quote from Dr. Steiner:

"...I reiterate that a person bound to contemporary
civilization believes that we confront all kinds of insurmountable limits to our ability to know. Such a person feels relief at this. His relief, however, only indicates a desire not to wake up. He wants to remain asleep. But anyone who in a modern sense wants to enter the spiritual world must begin to grapple with inner soul tasks at precisely the spot where the other person sets limits to knowledge..."

also, check out this cartoon- seems appropriate somehow...
Swami- you are quintessentially a nitpicker....!!!
seeya
r o b


http://villagevoice.com/news/0611,tomorrow,72494,9.html[/IMG]]http://villagevoice.com/news/0611,tomorrow,72494,9.html[/IMG]

[ March 16, 2006, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Rob P ]

[Rob P]

.......
Swami says:
Just drive away anyone with a different perspective to make yourselves feel better

Swami-
It seems that you keep coming back to make yourself feel better about having a different perspective-

but you never state your perspective.

I maintain that there is no element of your truth
in the statements you make, you simply refute others and
complain about people complaining about you!!!

Keep it up....at least we know we're alive!
r o b

[Dna]

Manning: The great scientists, the ones who truly had impact, were not the ones who were content to plot the grid of their lives according to the status quo. This is true. A lot of these guys were quite heretical for their time. I am reading about David Bohm, an american physicist who left McCarthyism to work in Britain. He is interesting, and thinks outside the box. If we were to follow his line of thinking, cartesian dualism would go out the window.

Anyway, I don't want to wax on about physics too much.

Regarding illness. I am laid up with a bad 'flu right now. I know it's not terminal, but sometimes it is better to be cranky and demanding. Look at little babies. They are really picky and cranky at times. They express themselves.

I think we have to allow ourselves to feel what we are feeling, and to ignore the positivity nazis.

Stick around Swami and don't take this too seriously! ;->

Dna.

[Lowlight]

Swami said -

"Interesting (and predictable) that not one discussion here has yet failed to produce an ad hominem or personalism from those who see themselves as more advanced. This is not discussion or an exchange of ideas.

As one loving being succinctly put it: "We are all one, except for you." This attitude seems to permeate this board. If one does not accept the prevalent attitude, then one is subject to attack?

Just drive away anyone with a different perspective to make yourselves feel better."

Why do you come back here so often when you dont agree with the vast majority of things discussed here? its like you are on some ego trip and love making yourself feel better through presenting tired arguments. Its you who try to drive everyone away when you persist to cling to a narrow view of the world, without which you would clearly fall apart - despite your 'truth need not be protected' you seem very motivated to protect your truth...

All you seem to do is come up with comments like the following in response to one of Daniel's posts concerning Karma -

"1. It is a totally untestable hypothesis as it can never be observed. One could make any any of an infinite number of untestable fantasies to attempt to make sense of tragedy.

2. The first creatures or men would have had no previous karma; yet still suffered and died.

Do you truly believe that a tsnuami is not caused by tectonic plate movement but by the evil of Thai villager's past lives?

Did evil dinosaur karma cause a planetary chunk to slam into the earth? What made asteroids hit planets with no prior lifeforms?

This type of primitive superstition helps no one and explains nothing."

Wow, that must have took you all of 2 seconds thought. You are knocking down your own western misunderstanding of Karma. Your point number '2' is incredibly ignorant of Indian philosophy and theology so top marks for burning your own straw men.

here is a re-post you never responded to -

Swami, you never seem to debate things here. You just state the materialist/reductionalist postion to what ever idea you feel like trying to destroy. On your own terms we cant 'argue' with you, so there is little point in responding to you at all.

The problem you face is that your presuppostions about the world are flawed and outdated. You love to doubt, but you only doubt so far, why not have the courage of your convictions and see what science actually says about the world when you take science to its limits? Here is a question for you to start with...What is matter?

[ March 16, 2006, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Lowlight ]

[felix4life]

Creating Your Reality

We would like to begin this transmission
with the following brief ideas,
to lay a little bit of what you call
a foundation or a groundwork
for the primary principles that will generally be contained
in almost every subject we will discuss.

Many of you have heard us talk about certain tools,
certain states of being,…certain states of mind
that will allow you to understand who and what you are
as a person…as a being…as a personality,
a little bit more clearly.

For it is in understanding the structure
and the nature of yourself as a person and as a being
that will allow you to make changes…
make shifts in your reality in the manner that you desire…
in the manner that you prefer…more effortlessly…
with the idea of less pain and more joy.

These ideas now are paramount
for what you call the "Age of Transition",
this "Age of Awareness" on your planet,
as you have named it,
and thus we are very happy to help to assist
in presenting concepts and tools that are handy,
that you can use very easily,
so that when applying them you can see the results
in yourselves and in your physical reality…
relatively quickly.

The idea first and foremost, of course,
always begins with self valuation.
We understand from our experience with many of you
that one of the most difficult things
that many of you now have to do on your planet…
is learn to value yourself.
Because you have forgotten your connection with the Infinite,
and because for thousands upon thousands of your years,
you have been taught to think of yourselves
as less than worthy…as undeserving…
as possessing little or no value…
and without an understanding of your worth,
without an understanding of your value,
no tool we would share with you would really be effective.

Only when you begin to learn…and behave…and hold true
that you are a worthwhile aspect of the Infinite,
that you are a beautiful…and unconditionally loved…
and supported aspect of Creation…
and hold yourself in the same value
that the Creation holds you in,
only really then will the tools be effective
in the strongest way possible.

It only makes sense, for the tools will only be
as strong and as powerful as the energy you give them,
because the energy comes from you…through you…
therefore you are the one that determines
the efficacy of the tool.
They do not really have the ability
to work of and by themselves
because they draw their energy from you--
they draw their realization capability from you.

So let us briefly lay down
a little bit of an outline of these ideas
so that we will have an understanding
and will have something to refer back to
as a base point…a base line.

First and foremost as we have said…self valuation.
From there comes the understanding
of what it means to be a personality structure.
A personality structure,
very briefly in recap for some of you,
in newness for others,
is based on three principles.
Your personality is an artificial construct…
it doesn't mean it isn't natural,
but it is a type of mask that is built…
or created…or fabricated from three ideas:
belief systems…emotions…and behavior.

You can understand the analogy of belief systems
being like the blueprints of a building.
The emotions are the builders--
the activation principles and energies
that get the building built,
and the behavior is the building material…
the thoughts and actions that you do.

So, you can instantly understand
that the nature of the blueprint…
the clarity of the design
will determine the ultimate product…
that the nature of the builders
will determine the quality of the product…
and that the nature of the building material
will determine the quality of the final building.

When those three things are in alignment,
you can understand that your reality will reflect
the idea of a strong structure…a strong reality…
that is stable in that way.
But if either your belief blueprint…
your emotional builder…
or your behavior building material
are somehow lacking or out of balance
in the idea of self worth and self valuation,
and are not aligned
with the other sides of the three sided prism,
then of course it would be obvious
that your building would be,
as you say in your language, a little bit wonky.

So, this whole idea is to help clarify
what those three components are really all about
and how to maintain them and bring them back into balance.

Now also it takes an understanding
that physical reality is really just a mirror
and it can only reflect what you put out.
There are really only Four Laws in Creation
that allow you to experience everything that you experience:

Law #1 is that You Exist.

Can't do much about that.
Now, when we talk first of all about laws,
we are not talking about the type of laws
that you have on your planet
that are in that sense,
arbitrary rules and regulations
that can be broken…or changed…
or rewritten…or ignored.
But the idea is even beyond
what many of you call laws of physics,
because even some of these
are only germane to your particular universal reality
and in other dimensions many of the so-called laws
that you have labeled do not really apply.

We are talking about real laws,
because real laws cannot be broken…
it is impossible.
And it is these four laws that give structure
to all of Creation.

So, as we have said…
Law #1 is that "you exist".
What that actually means
when taken out to its ultimate, logical understanding
is that if you exist now…
you always will and you always have.
Therefore you may change form
but you will always exist in some way, shape, or form,
because "Isness"
is the only quality that existence has.
It does not know how to become non-existence.
Non-existence is already full
of all the things that will never exist
and there is no room in non-existence
for that that does exist.
That which exists only has one quality…to be,
and thus that is the only thing it will always be.
So, if you do exist…you always will…
so relax…

Law #2: "The One is the All, and the All are the One."

This simply means that all of the pieces
together form "The One"…
and that "The One" is the one
that knows Itself, simultaneously,
as all the pieces…and as "The One".
What this means is
that Creation is not separate from the Creator,
but is made of the Creator
and that there is no outside to it,
everything that is…
every discrete person…place…thing…
every discrete concept…
every discrete part is a part of the one same whole.
And also holographically,
every single part is the whole
expressing itself as a part of the whole.
So the second law is "the One is All and the All are One".

Law #3: "What you put out is what you get back."

Very simple.
The energy you give off based on your beliefs…
your emotions…your behavior…
the vibrational frequency you give off
is what determines the kind of reality experience you have…
because physical reality doesn't exist
except as a reflection
of what you most strongly believe is true for you.
That is all that physical reality is.
It is literally like a mirror.

If you are looking in a mirror
and you see your face with a frown on it
you know that you don't go over to the mirror
and try to force the reflection to smile.
You know that if you want to see the reflection smile…
you must smile first.
There is no way to change the reflection
without you smiling first,
but you can also conversely understand
that when you decide to smile…
the reflection has no choice but to return the smile,
because it doesn't have a mind of its own.

So the idea to understand
is that physical reality
very much is really like a mirror;
it will not change until you do first,
but if you do…
it has no choice but to follow suit
because it is only a reflection
of what you have put out.
Law #4: "Change is the only constant,
and everything changes except the first three laws."

That's it--one, two, three, four--that's it!
Every experience you have ever had…
are having now…
or will ever have…
is based on a combination
of these four laws
to varying degrees…
That's it.

The idea to understand
is that when you allow yourself to make choices,
then your choices are based on your motivation
and your motivation is based on your definitions.
This is the other way to explain the three-part process.
Your behavior…your choices…
are based on your motivations.
Your motivations are based on your emotions
which stem from your definitions…which are your beliefs.
So anytime you are making a choice
it is always because you have been motivated
to make that choice.

Motivation only has two parts to it,
this is all there is to motivation.
You will always, in every single case,
you will always choose what you perceive to be
the choice that is closest to pleasure and furthest from pain.
That's it, that is your entire motivational force!

But notice I said you will choose what you perceive
to be closest to pleasure and furthest from pain
and that's where definitions come in…
because only as you define
what you believe to be pleasurable or painful
will you then be motivated to make choices
in accordance with that belief.

So, many times you may choose things
that on one level seem to be
detrimental…or destructive to you,
but if you keep choosing it that simply means
that you must have a definition in your belief system,
somewhere,
that says that regardless of how painful it is
to keep choosing that,
you are somehow defining it as being
less painful than making any other choice.
That's why it is so powerful to get in touch
with what your belief systems are…
because when you find out why
you may be defining something as pleasurable or painful
and you change the definition,
you will instantly change your motivation
and you will instantly change the choices that you make.

You are all motivated people,
none of you lack motivation…
none of you lack trust.
It's just a matter of where you are placing your trust
and what definitions you are motivated to act upon.
That's all there is to it.

This is how you simplify the things in your life…
by understanding them from the base on up.
From definition…through motivation…to choice.
From belief…through emotion…to behavior.
That's all there is to it…really.

The final thing that we will be including in this "tool kit",
is the idea that we have begun to talk about recently,
that is above and beyond the idea of belief…
and that is simple knowingness…
which comes from the idea of surrender…letting go.
Again, we understand that in many of the definitions
many of you have on your planet
regarding this word "surrender"
many of you will label this as a loss of some sort
or a lack of control of some sort…
and this is not the case.

Surrender,
if we may provide our definition,
is the letting go of the concept
of who you think you're supposed to be
and actually being who you are
because who you are is unlimited possibilities.
When you allow yourself to surrender
to the idea and the experience
that you are created in the image of the Infinite…
which means you are infinite possibilities…
then the physical reality which is only a mirror
can then reflect those unlimited possibilities
back to you…in the sychronicities
as they naturally unfold
in your physical day-to-day life.

Surrender is actually the acceptance of your total self.
It is not in that sense the forsaking of your total self
as many of you have been led to believe
through the definitions that your world has provided you with.
Definitions such as those only serve to limit you.
And this is what we want to share with you
and what we suggest you learn to give up…those limitations.

So that is really what we are going to be discussing
in all of these interactions,
variations of these principles,
it will usually all come down to that idea.
And of course it will usually always come down
to another principle that is all wrapped up in this
and that has to do with being your natural true self,
which in many cases is simply another way of saying
"Follow your joy".

Follow your excitement to the best of your ability
because the sensation that you call joy,
the sensation that you call excitement,
the sensation that you call unconditional love
is the frequency of the energy that represents
your natural…true…core…original self .
So when you are acting
on circumstances and opportunities
that bring with them the highest level of joy…
the highest level of excitement…
you are saying you have the faith
to take the steps to act upon your true self
and in so doing your physical reality…the mirror…
will support you
because it has no choice but to do so.

These are the principles that comprise
the tool kit of manifestation and change
and that's really all there is to it.
You will see that almost everything we discuss
will come down in one way, shape or form
to these ideas if it has to do with your own personal growth
and the expression of who and what you are.

Once again, we thank you for the opportunity
to experience this gift of sharing with you.

~ Bashar

[landscapes]

Saoirse,

Thank you ever so much for bringing up Peter Kingston and his ideas: it is for me a very exciting find, and in my opinion reaffirms the value of this forum. I have a background in Western philosophy and an attraction to the early Greek philosphers, and what Kingston says about them has really opened up new vistas for me: Western philosophy and mysticism, of course! I sensed they somehow were connected, and Kingston dedicates his intellectual talents to show the connection, and more. I found out today that Kingston has moved to the San Francisco Bay Area, where I live, has a study group twice a month and is teaching a four-week course at Stanford University in May. Should be very interesting to hear him in person articulating his ideas.

Thanks again!

landscapes

[Physical Necessity]

Wow, I see a lot of personal analysis of Swami and his actions instead of discussion of the points raised.

Differences in opinion are bound to occur, but yet the suitable method for a discussion forum is to discuss the issues involving the difference in opinion, instead of focusing on the "character" of the one with the different opinion.

Character, of course, is in quotations because its more of one's own projection rather than observation, as one obviously has next to nothing evident within what has been presented here by the other in order to base personal analysis upon.

PN

[Physical Necessity]

Originally posted by Lowlight:
Your point number '2' is incredibly ignorant of Indian philosophy and theology so top marks for burning your own straw men.
Swami, you never seem to debate things here.I realize that you seem to be more focused upon discussing Swami himself, but your assertion that Swami doesn't seem to debate things here applies equally to yourself.

You proclaim that Swami's point is ignorant of some concept that is actually what was being referred to, but you do not make any attempt whatsoever to demonstrate how and why this is.

As far Swami, from what I have read so far, he created a topic for this thread and has, from that point, debated it, going as far as to cite sources for his statements. The vast majority of the responses focus on Swami himself, his difference in opinion, why he posts here (which is absolutely hilarious, ya'll must be psychic), etc. ad nauseum.

PN

[Physical Necessity]

Originally posted by Rob P:
I maintain that there is no element of your truth
in the statements you make, you simply refute others and
complain about people complaining about you!!!To question and refute is an essential aspect of the process of realizing truth. Perhaps if others would stick to the discussion at hand instead of focusing upon personalisms, it would not be necessary to call them on it?

PN

[Physical Necessity]

Originally posted by Rob P:
"But anyone who in a modern sense wants to enter the spiritual world must begin to grapple with inner soul tasks at precisely the spot where the other person sets limits to knowledge..."
Anyone interested in developing spirituality must accept reality as it presents itself to them. Any extra, unsubstantiated beliefs serve as great obstructions to spirituality.

It is a paranoid delusion to assume that some great human force or tendency sets concrete boundaries on what can be known and refuses to move forth from that. Such limitations exist naturally as the furthest point yet that science has been able to validate and explore with actual means. This is the starting point, obviously. It doesn't mean that one makes up bullshit outside of such that feels profound and assumes it to be true and "spiritual". lol

PN

[Lowlight]

PN said

"I realize that you seem to be more focused upon discussing Swami himself, but your assertion that Swami doesn't seem to debate things here applies equally to yourself.

You proclaim that Swami's point is ignorant of some concept that is actually what was being referred to, but you do not make any attempt whatsoever to demonstrate how and why this is.

As far Swami, from what I have read so far, he created a topic for this thread and has, from that point, debated it, going as far as to cite sources for his statements. The vast majority of the responses focus on Swami himself, his difference in opinion, why he posts here (which is absolutely hilarious, ya'll must be psychic), etc. ad nauseum."

hi PN,

i think you have walked into a long on-going saga, may be you have been following swamis other posts though so im not sure. Anyway i guess if you read this thread in isolation it seems like everyone is confronting swami, but if you have followed his other posts then you will see why people have the reactions that they have.

Swami doesnt seem to want to debate. This whole thread which he started is slanted at knocking down anyone who doesnt see the world as he does. But you are right, we dont 'know' swami, i dont claim to, but i do have knowledge of the set of ideas he constantly brings up here - been there, and it leads to all the horrors of the 20 century. If you read his other posts it is an obvious question to ask why he keeps coming back when he seems to have great distain for all none materialistc philosophy and theories. I dont understand why he spends so much time here when he clearly has a problem with most of the subjects that are discussed on this forum, why waste the time, the dude isnt gonna convert anyone!

Anyway what do i know

I know nothing,

Or rather i hope to know nothing.

peace

[waterthere]

Any extra, unsubstantiated beliefs serve as great obstructions to spirituality. By 'unsubstantiated' do you mean 'not scientifically proven'?

If so, I disagree---ignoring established religious systems, which I think would qualify as 'extra' in that sense, seems to be the greater obstruction. A lineage is necessary.

It is a paranoid delusion to assume that some great human force or tendency sets concrete boundaries on what can be known and refuses to move forth from that. Paranoid delusion is not necessarily untrue in every sense---the underlying thematic content can indicate quite a lot about a person and a society. I'm a big believer in the intuitive process as a manner of guide, and suspect that the reoccuring themes and plotlines running amongst these ramblings of the paranoid and deluded act like collective dreams that convey some truth of the unknown in a symbolic fashion.

It doesn't mean that one makes up bullshit outside of such that feels profound and assumes it to be true and "spiritual". These newage speculations aren't meant to be taken literally as truth, I don't think. The truth is felt during the process of letting go.

[ba caracus]

Ok, so if in the poorer countries, the tsunami hot spot areas, these people are living out there bad karma. (Is that a correct statement?) Then what are we doing living in the rich countries of the west bourgoising it up. wasting our money on futile objects/services whilst the world starves, living out there bad karma. Are we perhaps creating bad karma for ourselves, whilst the other side is living out theres? So in the our next lives, who's gonna be in a better position. Who is balancing there Karma so to speak.

I have read though that some believe 2012 will renew our Karma. Again if that occurs, who's gonna have a better position to use that opportunity?

[ba caracus]

This reminds me of a true story i read somewhere, maybe on this post.

A man went to the doctors with a cancerous lump the size of an egg. He mentioned to the doctor that he had read about a new cure for cancerous lumps which had recently come onto the market, and wondered if the doctor could prescribe the medicine. The told him to come the following week, at which now the lump had grown to the size of a tennis ball. The man begged the doctor, so the doctor agreed. He gave the man an injection of water. the following week the man was beeming with delight as the lump had shrunk to an egg size, and finally the size of a grape. A fellow doctor heard about what had happened, and sent the patient a long essay disproving the positive effects of the medicine he had asked from the doctor. The man died two days later.

[daniel]

ba caracas writes: "Ok, so if in the poorer countries, the tsunami hot spot areas, these people are living out there bad karma. (Is that a correct statement?)"

No. The situation may be far too complex to reduce it to "bad" versus "good" karma. There may be many forms of karmic evolution happening simultaneously. To take one example, the development of intellect and the development of the soul or the emotional body. Those who take an incarnation that brings with it a significant amount of pain and suffering may be seeking to evolve their soul capacities.

ba caracas write: Then what are we doing living in the rich countries of the west bourgoising it up. wasting our money on futile objects/services whilst the world starves..."

Yes what are we doing? For the most part, we are not living up to our responsibilities. And yes, this could have significant karmic consequences.

ba caracas: "Are we perhaps creating bad karma for ourselves, whilst the other side is living out theres? So in the our next lives, who's gonna be in a better position. Who is balancing there Karma so to speak."

according to the Buddhists, human rebirth is very precious, and there are many other realms that one can be born into, such as the Hungry Ghost realm, the animal realm, the hell realm, the Jealous God realm, etc. Each individual stands at a crossroads, as does humanity as a whole. It is also important to understand that the Tibetan bardo states are not just experienced after death - they are experienced from moment to moment. We are continually "incarnating" into the bardo states depending on what emotion we allow to dominate us.

I also think it is important to understand that, while karma accrues, liberation (attainment of an unconditioned perspective) is also possible. As Namkai Norbu puts it, karma is not like a weight or a burden, but like the darkness in a room - turn on a light, and the darkness vanishes.

ba caracas: "I have read though that some believe 2012 will renew our Karma. Again if that occurs, who's gonna have a better position to use that opportunity?"

I would see it more as a fulfillment of karmic patterns that have formed through this cycle of human evolution. Some will be ready to attain a new level of existence, others will continue their evolutionary development, perhaps on other worlds.

I am also very interested in CS Lewis' idea that "everything becomes more and more itself," and feel that is happening quite openly now. It will be interesting to see how this progresses.

I also hypothesize that in the "future" we might develop an exacting science of karma, to the point where we will know when a certain individuality is returning to the Earth from understanding astronomical alignments (check out Tarnas' Cosmos and Psyche for the relation between planets in transit and cycles of human history).

[Fool Zero]

Hi all, I'd been looking at this thread for a while. I finally decided to register so that I could comment.

Rather than try to come up with a detailed account of myself -- where I've been, what I've done and what t-shirts I have to show for it -- I'd just as soon let my post(s) serve as my introduction. I should add that if there's one thing I'm interested in, it's how we know what we know.

I'd like to pick up -- a bit haphazardly and a bit late -- on a few of the things that have been said here over the last several days.

Neo_shaman-evolution:
Creating your reality, the first step is realizing that there is no external, reality does not lie outside of yourself... (#1)

Physical Necessity:
I think that might be presumptious in that the basics of our relationship with nature and reality imply that there is an external reality.
. . .
I would not go as far as to state that an external reality does not exist. (#3)Even if a particular argument can be called presumptuous, I don't see why that has to stop me from appreciating it or even adopting it. The only way I could see it making a difference would be if I were hanging out with a crowd that wouldn't tolerate presumptuous arguments and I wanted to stay on their good side.

As far as whether external reality does or doesn't exist... [pulls out touchstone] we can pretend that it does and see where that takes us; we can pretend that it doesn't and see where that takes us; but whichever route we chose, I doubt that we would ever know for sure that the other one couldn't have been made equally workable. I propose, as an alternative, either "It does exist, because I say so" or -- your choice -- "It doesn't exist, because I say so". We could, of course, claim that I'm right and you're wrong because my say-so is better than your say-so, and vice-versa. I'd expect that as long as we didn't forget that we were making the whole thing up anyway, any discussion that resulted would have to stay pretty harmless.

---------------------

Manning:
...the article link from Kingley's website leads to a PDF file that was being very cranky in the opening department for me and possible others.That would be http://peterkingsley.org/pkoffice/images/CommonSense.pdf. It took a long time to load for me and there were a few times I thought it might be hung up, but it did eventually finish. I thought at first the pages might be photo images of magazine pages, which would have accounted for the slow loading. It turned out, though, that I could use the Text Select tool to copy text from the article to the clipboard -- something I wouldn't expect to be able to do with an image.

saoirse, thanks for mentioning and later posting the article. It occurred to me that Kingsley seems to touch on some of the same subjects that R.D.Laing addresses in The Politics of Experience. I was wondering if that's something that the people here have read and discussed.

And Manning, thanks for the "Knowing Beyond Knowing" link. I might have a bit more to say about those articles later.

--------------------------

One of the excerpts that Swami posted (in #14) said: Australian researchers report patients with a positive attitude fared no better than their less-upbeat peers, leading them to suggest that doctors who encourage cancer patients to remain hopeful following a diagnosis may be doing more harm than good.Does that mean (I find myself wondering) that those doctors (if any) who instead encourage their cancer patients to become hopeless, may be doing more good than harm?

[Oh, I just noticed that willoweyes comments (in #18) on that same item.]

------------------------

Swami:
... the alleged power of prayer, visualization, affirmations and other useless means of attemtping to bend the laws of nature or to command reality by merely talking to oneself or beseeching some non-existent entity. (#24)I don't see these as techniques for bending the laws of nature or commanding reality. What if their use were, say, as tools for examining or challenging one's own attitude -- or perhaps one's attachment to that attitude?

(Swami again)
A solid plan, discipline, understanding and specific directed action is the only demonstrable means of making dreams happen.It seems to me that those "means" don't come into play until fairly late in the game. One has first to choose a dream to make happen (with some assurance that it won't quickly turn into a nightmare or that if it starts to, one can retreat from it without too much irreparable harm being done). One has then to arrive at the necessary understanding; formulate the plan and evaluate it for "solidity"; and commit to whatever discipline may be necessary. Only then, I'd say, would one be ready to undertake "directed action" with some slight assurance that it might produce a desired result.

------------------------------
Lowlight, addressing Swami:
Why do you come back here so often when you dont agree with the vast majority of things discussed here? its like you are on some ego trip and love making yourself feel better through presenting tired arguments. Its you who try to drive everyone away when you persist to cling to a narrow view of the world, without which you would clearly fall apart... (#39)I'm new here so I don't know Swami's history, nor Lowlight's with Swami. I do find myself wondering how Swami came by the power to yank Lowlight's chain so effectively (and perhaps others' as well).

I notice that Physical Necessity later addresses approximately this same question (#43-45).

-----------------------------
Physical Necessity:
It doesn't mean that one makes up bullshit outside of [the limits of knowledge] that feels profound and assumes it to be true and "spiritual". (#46)I like to think that as long as one admits that that's what one is doing, there's not a lot of harm in it.

------------------------------
Lowlight (addressing Physical Necessity in #47):
i guess if you read this thread in isolation it seems like everyone is confronting swami, but if you have followed his other posts then you will see why people have the reactions that they have.I either haven't read those other posts or have forgotten them but (new as I am here) it's hard to imagine what could be in any of those posts that could make anyone have any reaction without their consent and cooperation.

(Swami, could you make me have some such reaction too, so I can watch just how you do it?)

--------------------------------
Manning's linked response to Swami in another thread (http://www.breakingopenthehead.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000129;p=3#0000 43) (#50) calls for a closer look and some hanging out with. I suspect I'll be wandering over that way eventually, though probably not tonight.

--------------------------------
ba caracus:
This reminds me of a true story i read somewhere, maybe on this post.

A man went to the doctors with a cancerous lump the size of an egg... (#51)In keeping with my personal obsession with how we know what we know, I would of course like to know how ba caracus determined whether the story was true or not.

-------------------------------
And that, I think, is all I have time for tonight. So far this sounds like a very interesting place. I must confess, my first impression was that I couldn't possibly manage to fit in; but then, maybe I won't even need to.

[ba caracus]

Unfortunately Fool Zero, im a feroscious reader, who never remembers the source or its credibility..(who am i to judge?), only the content. I think whether the story is true or not is not important. Im sure some would disgree... but... I'm sure that everyone can think of examples in their lives where they believed in something or that they believed something was helping them in some way, only to find or be convinced of the opposing truth, thus dissolving the fabric of their reality, creating great distress, and negative reactions, loss of hope, belief etc. Our fragile illussions can have such wonderful and devistating effects upon us.

[Lowlight]

Hi Foolzero

Yeah swami's philosophy (rather than swami as a person because i dont know him) presses all the right buttons to get me serated in my posts. Im also baffled why he post somewhere he obvious feels is filled with junk/bad thinking. Its like going out to a nightclub you hate on a repeated basis, just so you can say how much you hate the place and what a shithole it is.

Part of my reaction stems from the fact that in hm i see a former self of many years ago - so assured that they have their hands on truth. The close you grip the harder the fall when it slips through your fingers. So in part i am angry at my own past self for being so ignorant, but i would add that it is also directed at the materialistic philosophy as well.

You mention R.D.Laing and The Politics of Experience, yeah i just read that a few weeks back. Great book. I liked it a lot but feel i requires repeated reading over time. I def agree with his analysis of madness.

[Icelander]

Its like going out to a nightclub you hate on a repeated basis, just so you can say how much you hate the place and what a shithole it is.

:D

[Fool Zero]

ba caracus:
I think whether the story is true or not is not important.I'd agree with that.

By the way, your story reminded me of a perhaps more famous one that makes a similar point: The Fifty-First Dragon (http://www.bartleby.com/237/33.html), by Heywood Broun. Greatly condensed version: a young man studying to become a knight is encouraged by his instructors to take up dragon slaying. Having become proficient against dummy dragons, he is hesitant to take on a live one until the headmaster offers him a magic word to make him invulnerable. Thus protected, our hero goes out and promptly slays a dragon, then another and another, until he has become quite the celebrity: As Gawaine’s record of killings mounted higher the Headmaster found it impossible to keep him completely in hand. He fell into the habit of stealing out at night and engaging in long drinking bouts at the village tavern. It was after such a debauch that he rose a little before dawn one fine August morning and started out after his fiftieth dragon. His head was heavy and his mind sluggish. He was heavy in other respects as well, for he had adopted the somewhat vulgar practice of wearing his medals, ribbons and all, when he went out dragon hunting. The decorations began on his chest and ran all the way down to his abdomen. They must have weighed at least eight pounds.He forgets his magic word, panics, but in the nick of time manages to slay the dragon anyway. Back at the knight school, he demands an explanation from the headmaster.
The Headmaster laughed. "I’m glad you've found out," he said. "It makes you ever so much more of a hero. Don’t you see that? Now you know that it was you who killed all these dragons and not that foolish little word"...Cowering in bed the next morning, our hero is dragged out by his instructors and pressed to restore his confidence by finding and killing another dragon or two. They pushed the boy into a thicket above which hung a meager cloud of steam. It was obviously quite a small dragon. But Gawaine did not come back that night or the next. In fact, he never came back. Some weeks afterward brave spirits from the school explored the thicket, but they could find nothing to remind them of Gawaine except the metal parts of his medals. Even the ribbons had been devoured.

[Swami]

An amazingly bad analogy.

One would expect Trance music at a rave, but to equate Atlantis or Crop Circles with psychedelics or a book wherein they were NOT discussed is ludicrous.

Its more like going to a website to discuss a book that we all read. Instead it seems like a place for those who disagree with a concept (and fail to substantiate why they disagree) to psychoanalze the poster in lieu of presenting any rationale.

The word 'hate' or even dislike appear nowhere in any single post of mine. I do not hate this site. I hate piss-poor (or non-existent) thinking. This sort of belief that one's erroneous perceptions are - in fact, reality - is what constitutes a fluffernaut.

Believing something because it seems warm and fluffy and magical and for no other reason, is a the sign of an irrational thought process.

[ April 01, 2006, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Swami ]

[Lowlight]

"Believing something because it seems warm and fluffy and magical and for no other reason, is a the sign of an irrational thought process."

is this it? the best you can do?

i cant even be bothered anymore. dude, you are a stuck record playing a song by spock, very rational, very boring.

[JohnShirley]

There's so much here I'm just going to reply by giving my general sense of the topic...

Some people seem to think (Chopra may be responsible for much of the vogue in this) that you can affect external reality with your thoughts--that is, affect it directly. If this is doable it's doable so fractionally as to be immeasurable, and even unimportant.

What's doable is that a positive attitude helps us psychologically, so we don't give up, and biologically, because of the body-brain connection. It's about psychology and sociology and the fact that optimists (I'm not naturally one) apply efforts to the world more often that others so they tend to have an edge. This creates the illusion of attitude affecting external reality in some objective, independent way.

The more conscious we are, the better we can maneuver in the world. I like Gurdjieff because he emphasized consciousness and self knowledge (and he gives specific techniques that regardless of what some may tell you, actually work, if you actually do them). The ability to 'do' was all about consciousness and self knowledge, but not some mystical impact of the mind on external reality.

The more free we feel, the less psychologically encumbered, the better our experience of the universe--and other people respond to us better. So our psychological states affect what happens to us socially and even commercially.

See Krishnamurti, Gurdjieff, Thomas Keating, Vipassana Buddhism, Naq'sh'bandi sufism etc.

John Shirley

[-=S-M=-]

Lowlight writes:

i cant even be bothered anymore. dude, you are a stuck record playing a song by spock, very rational, very boring.

This sentence seems to imply an obvious bias against proper principles of thought, e.g., rationality. By alluding to such a glorious tool of cognition under a negative context with the epithet 'boring', one is implicitly illustrating a deep-seated resentment - towards reality. Why reality, you ask? Because rationality is the method or habit of acting according to reason. Reason is the faculty that integrates the information provided by our senses into concepts. The method of reason is the art of non-contradictory identification: logic. Logic is governed by one metaphysical principle: The Law of Identity.

The Law of Identity is a corollary of Existence.

Existence is the fundamental, irreducible primary by which all rational philosophy must start.

Working back in reverse order:
Existence exists.
To exist, is to exist as something.
To exist as something is to have a particular identity.
Therefore, the Law of Identity is an inherent property of Existence.
Thus, for the [rational] homo-sapien to survive, one must excercise their mind to adhere to reality.
To do this, one must excercise their faculty of reason, which adheres to the Law of Identity via logic.
When one accomplishes this, one survives, for he is acting in harmony with reality.
One thus, becomes rational.

Living in harmony with reality, in control of my own life, where I take my future and in myriad forms of success, is hardly boring.

[JohnShirley]

I know what Swami means, though--lots of people believe things that are comfortable, that are warm and fluffy, because...well, because they're comfortable and warm and fluffy and for no other good reason. I'm not saying you guys are but that is out there and it's noise to get through, so one can find the signal...

But btw this is not to say I don't think there's an external spiritual reality, I think there is. I'm not sure what it's nature is, I have only some observations and hypotheses.

[ April 01, 2006, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: JohnShirley ]

[sidecross]

“Rational” “Reality”

Here is an example of both ‘rational’ & ‘reality’ concerning World War One.

“…The dimensions of loss (of life) can perhaps be appreciated visually. If one were to stand on a street corner at 9 A.M. and watch the spirits of the British dead march by four abreast, the column would be 97 miles long and would take twenty-four hours to pass. The French dead would take an additional fifty-one hours and the Germans another fifty-nine hours. Considering all the dead on the western front, this parade would last from 9 A.M. Monday to 4 P.M. Saturday and stretch 386 miles…”

From the book Eleven Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour by Joseph E. Persico.

So much for the concepts of ‘rational’ & ‘reality’.

[-=S-M=-]

Posting an excerpt from a book that gives an analogous description of the disastrous effects from irrationality does not negate rationality and/or reality.

[Humming]

OK, here we go!

It may indeed be misleading to say that humans affect reality through our perception of it. A more accurate way of saying it would be that perception IS reality. There is no distinction.

We cannot experience reality without utilizing the filter of our perception of it. Realizing this, reality itself and the act of perceiving reality are indivisible. In this way, "karma" or "wishful thinking" is seen not as an influence on reality, but as part of the manifestation of reality itself.

There have been numerous instances in my life where I've been thinking of something, or discussing something when friends, and then sudenly out of nowhere, it happens, or the thing becomes tangibly real. I think that this is actually happening all the time, that we are in a constant feedback loop of communication with our reality: a feedback loop of perception and energy.

When I am most conscious in my lucid dreams, I am able to create physical reality through the expression of my will and intent. Or, more accurately, this experience feels as though the landscape of reality itself is aware of my consciousness, and "mimics" or mirrors my thoughts and feeling with such an intensity that my thoughts and feelings and unconscious desires are instantly manifested. The creation of physical reality is the easiest thing in the world to do if you know how. When my emotions are afraid, the scene will shift into darkness and horrible things will happen. When my emotions are serene, I am blessed with infinite beauty and light and peace.

I bring up the dream realm because I think that dreams are an integral aspect of our reality as humans. The shamanic worldview is that the dreaming and waking worlds are the same. The duality is an illusion. When I am most conscious in my dreams, I become aware of the actual physical space that my body is present in. When I become most conscious in my waking state, I begin to perceive reality as a sort of dream.....

You can ask: what affect does that dream have on the "real world"? Why can't I create physical reality in the waking world?

The answer is that the effect of the dream is within me. It is "real" and valid because I have experienced it.

If you pay close attention, look for the signs in your life, you may find that your perceptions are more a part of reality than you had ever imagined they were.

[Rob P]

.......

Hey Sidecross-

I like that quote from the 11/11/11 book....

Images such as that one can have a more powerful
effect than all the pseudo-intellectuals
weighing in lately!

seeya
r o b
.......

[Lowlight]

Wow nice way to misread me.

"This sentence seems to imply an obvious bias against proper principles of thought, e.g., rationality. By alluding to such a glorious tool of cognition under a negative context with the epithet 'boring', one is implicitly illustrating a deep-seated resentment - towards reality."

nope, you got me wrong brother. when i said,

"i cant even be bothered anymore. dude, you are a stuck record playing a song by spock, very rational, very boring."

This is aimed at the way swami posts, not at 'reason', and nor at swami the person as i dont 'know' him. Actually when swami says -

"Believing something because it seems warm and fluffy and magical and for no other reason, is a the sign of an irrational thought process."

i agree. But there are a multitude of reasons to believe reality is more than we see or experience through the lenses of materialism. Swami seems to disagree. HE WANTS HIS DINNER AND HE WANTS IT NOW!

Im not going to waste my time elaborating on swami's ideology or way of posting anymore though. It gets boring talking to brick walls, (though it is kinda funny when a wall is built on quick sand).

As for 'reality' as you describe it, well logic is relational. Reality on a fundamental level is 'nothing' not 'something' - so it is none relational. Logic, reason etc etc have nothing to say once you step beyond duality.

And WW1? It was seen as perfectly rational at the time. Just as the Nazi Holocaust is rational within the context of Nazi ideology. reason is a tool, but it cannot prove which morality is correct - there lies the danger of reason.

[ April 01, 2006, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Lowlight ]

[sidecross]

The obvious point is that ‘reason’& ‘reality’ is not absolute and like time it is relative.

It is no easy task to hang your hat on a non absolute hat rack.

[JohnShirley]

Humming - altering a thing in a dream is not altering a 'physical reality'.

It may be that if one pays close attention one sees oneself altering the world via perception alone...but it's just as likely that one is imagining it.

I personally don't see the relevance of the quote about the world war one soldiers, and reality. How does that prove anything? Is he saying that world war one is a product of rational thinking? Historians don't generally think so.

[-=S-M=-]

As for 'reality' as you describe it, well logic is relational

Correct. Logic [art of non-contradiction] is relational to the Principle of Identity. What is the Law of Identity relative to? Existence.

Reality on a fundamental level is 'nothing' not 'something' - so it is none relational.

...? Overlooking that I don't understand this statement; nothing doesn't exist. Reality is indeed something. And if something exists, then something exists.

Logic, reason etc etc have nothing to say once you step beyond duality.

Duality? Show me something beyond the Existence/Nonexistence continuum.

And WW1? It was seen as perfectly rational at the time.

Merely because a particular or group of particular individuals see something as rational, does not mean that they are not being irrational.

Just as the Nazi Holocaust is rational within the context of Nazi ideology.

Correct - but it isn't quite so much the content-specific rationality which I am referring to, but rather the contextual rationality - or in this case, irrationality.

Moreover, there is never a case which changes the fact that rationality is a must for our survival, for the only alternative is to act on mere whim.
In actuality, it is always ignorance that proves to be dangerous - not rationality. Rationality is a tool of cognition. Likewise, any rational man wouldn't blame the hammer itself, for the damage which was initiated by the mind behind the hammer.

reason is a tool, but it cannot prove which morality is correct - there lies the danger of reason.

That depends on what specific criterion is designated to define what is moral and unmoral.
Reason itself isn't dangerous. There are no dangerous tools. Only dangerous minds, read: ignorance.

[ April 02, 2006, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: -=S-M=- ]

[-=S-M=-]

Sidecross writes:

The obvious point is that ‘reason’& ‘reality’ is not absolute and like time it is relative.

Reason is relative in the respect that it is in relation to other parts of reality. However, it is absolute in the respect that it is a must-do for our survival, to gain knowledge - there is no other way.

Reality [i.e., nature] is most certainly absolute. It exists in a certain, specific way. The statement "Reality is Absolute" is the explicit recognition of the Primacy of Existence. This means that reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. If you want to change the world, you must act according to reality. Nothing else will affect reality.

In the words of Sir Francis Bacon, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

[ April 02, 2006, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: -=S-M=- ]

[Lowlight]

"...? Overlooking that I don't understand this statement; nothing doesn't exist. Reality is indeed something. And if something exists, then something exists."

Nope, reality is in its most fundamental form beyond any 'thing', it is in fact, no 'thing', it is Ayin. It is beyond relation. No logic, no reason, no art, no lnguage can approach it because these require relation and it is beyond that. Only things 'within' reality are 'somethings'.

"Duality? Show me something beyond the Existence/Nonexistence continuum."

En Sof

"Merely because a particular or group of particular individuals see something as rational, does not mean that they are not being irrational."

Yes, but thats the point. Reason is a tool which would requires a transcendent anchor to judge something as 'good' or 'bad' in a ultimate sense.

"rationality is a must for our survival,"

Yes, but your statement shows that rationality is dependent rather than a 'must' in an absolte sense. It is only a must if we want to survive. Considering our species deep love of Thanatos this is open to question...

"That depends on what specific criterion is designated to define what is moral and unmoral.
Reason itself isn't dangerous. There are no dangerous tools. Only dangerous minds, read: ignorance."

Dont conflate ignornace with evil, they may be distinct. A commander of 1 of the 4 Einsatzgruppen had 2 PhDs! But yes i agree reason isnt evil in and of itself.

[ April 02, 2006, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Lowlight ]

[sidecross]

“Reason is relative in the respect that it is in relation to other parts of reality. However, it is absolute in the respect that it is a must-do for our survival, to gain knowledge - there is no other way.”

That ‘reasoning’ was used by the leaders and generals of both sides during World War l is not a ‘must-do’; our survival and knowledge could have gone a different way if we used ‘reasoning’ that history saw quite differently.

“Reality [i.e., nature] is most certainly absolute. It exists in a certain, specific way. The statement "Reality is Absolute" is the explicit recognition of the Primacy of Existence. This means that reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. If you want to change the world, you must act according to reality. Nothing else will affect reality.”

This statement is so obtuse that it could have been used against Galileo to prove the sun revolves around the Earth. The above quoted statement would also deny quantum mechanics and other aspects of science that do not fit the human concept of immediate perceived reality.

[-=S-M=-]

Nope, reality is in its most fundamental form beyond any 'thing', it is in fact, no 'thing', it is Ayin. It is beyond relation. No logic, no reason, no art, no lnguage can approach it because these require relation and it is beyond that. Only things 'within' reality are 'somethings'.

Non-sequitur. Either reality exists, or it does not exist. If it exists, it exists as something.

Yes, but thats the point. Reason is a tool which would requires a transcendent anchor to judge something as 'good' or 'bad' in a ultimate sense.

What is this ultimate sense you are referring to?

Yes, but your statement shows that rationality is dependent rather than a 'must' in an absolte sense. It is only a must if we want to survive.

It is an absolute under an If-Then standard - i.e., If one wants to survive, then rationality is an absolute in the context that it is a must for one's survival.

Dont conflate ignornace with evil, they may be distinct. A commander of 1 of the 4 Einsatzgruppen had 2 PhDs!

Merely because one has a Ph.D, does not mean that they are not ignorant in every respect. Evil is a result of a certain ignorance. Only when one gains sufficient knowledge, does such evil diminish - much like darkness in presence of light.

[-=S-M=-]

That ‘reasoning’ was used by the leaders and generals of both sides during World War l is not a ‘must-do’; our survival and knowledge could have gone a different way if we used ‘reasoning’ that history saw quite differently.

You are confusing reason with the reaoning.

Reason is at once a faculty and a process of identifying and integrating the data present or given in awareness. Reason means integration in accordance with the law of noncontradiction.

The reasoning used by WarLords should not negate reason as the tool of cognition, any more than a hammer when used for malicious destruction.

This statement is so obtuse that it could have been used against Galileo to prove the sun revolves around the Earth.

Please, explain how you've arriven at this conclusion.

The above quoted statement would also deny quantum mechanics and other aspects of science that do not fit the human concept of immediate perceived reality.

Are you referring to Sir Francis Bacon's quote? Realizing the fact that to command nature, we must obey it, conflicts with Quantum Mechanics? Please. I can't count how many times I've seen mystics attempt to use the "mysteries" of QM to justify their mystical metaphysics or some such beliefs. In the words of Richard Feynman,
"I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics".

The way to tell when someone is stumped philosophically is to observe the point at which they trot out Quantum mechanics. Any honest physicist will tell you that QM is applicable only at insanely tiny dimensions - literally sub-atomic dimensions. As soon as you get even to the size of a complete atom - much less a molecule - everything changes. And even then the honest physicist will tell you that it is impossible to accurately convey what is going on in QM with just words - that only mathematics gives the full picture. The analogies used to make the concepts graspable to non-mathematicians are just that - analogies.

[ April 02, 2006, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: -=S-M=- ]

[sidecross]

“…The way to tell when someone is stumped philosophically is to observe the point at which they trot out Quantum mechanics.”

Count me out of this dialogue; the above quote negates any further time to be wasted on someone with this view point.

[Isaiah Mpski]

Have you heard of Quantum Parker

Does this make any sense to you then?

Lay down there in Texas

Alf Landon is correct.

We need to load all of the Iraqi army,and their families along with the Nation of Israel and move them lock stock and barrel to the Americas.
Unify the North and the South in Democratic non violent cooperation.
With the end of the Reagan era,the covert wars in central and south America were essential abandoned.
The answer to man-kinds problem is the same solution the the pharoahs used-public works.

We need to establish a permanent station on the moon,which is not only functional but inspirational to view.

[ April 02, 2006, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Isaiah Mpski ]

[Eagle Wing]

"Reason means integration in accordance with the law of noncontradiction."

what is "the law of noncontradiction?"

One thing about "contradiction" is that, literally, it just means "saying things against each other". So what it is, is a matter of perspective. Different points of view can indeed create contradictions. We know this in interpersonal and intellectual matters.

Is is not possible that nature has different points of view as well, and that "reality" could contain "contradictions?"

[-=S-M=-]

what is "the law of noncontradiction?"

Essentially: The Law of Identity.

Is is not possible that nature has different points of view as well, and that "reality" could contain "contradictions?"

Nature is all there is. It cannot contradict itself. If you think you have found a contradiction in nature, check your premises.
Contradictions can exist in ideas, but contradictions do not exist objectively.

[Lowlight]

"Non-sequitur. Either reality exists, or it does not exist. If it exists, it exists as something."

Yes, i am comfortable with saying reality exists, but that doesnt mean it is a 'thing'. All things have existence in some form, but that doesnt mean existence itself is a 'thing', see what i mean? Im specifically talking about the totality of reality, the infinite immensity. How is 'infinite' a thing? It outstrips those categories. A 'thing' can be descretely defined. It has 'ends', it is a thing in relation to another thing. The immensity includes both things, in fact all things. It cannot be defined because it is not limited. It is not 'like' anything else because it is the other at the same time.

"What is this ultimate sense you are referring to?"

In terms of morality the ultimate sense would be the sense in which an action was proved to be the right moral action. We cannot know this from a human perspective. We need God, or would have to be God to say it was ultimately the right action.

"It is an absolute under an If-Then standard - i.e., If one wants to survive, then rationality is an absolute in the context that it is a must for one's survival."

Yes I agree.

"Merely because one has a Ph.D, does not mean that they are not ignorant in every respect. Evil is a result of a certain ignorance. Only when one gains sufficient knowledge, does such evil diminish - much like darkness in presence of light."

This is St Augustine's 'evil as a privation of the Good', which i dont buy into. Evil can be a result of ignorance, but it can also be the result of an intoxication with evil itself. Some people are very clever but actually get off on the fact they are doing wrong, this is the seductiveness of power and evil.

"The way to tell when someone is stumped philosophically is to observe the point at which they trot out Quantum mechanics. Any honest physicist will tell you that QM is applicable only at insanely tiny dimensions - literally sub-atomic dimensions. As soon as you get even to the size of a complete atom - much less a molecule - everything changes."

That was right until about 2 years ago. Quantum effcts have now been found at atomic and even molecular levels! check this out -

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/22/QUANTUM.TMP&type=science

peace

[ April 03, 2006, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: Lowlight ]

[ba caracus]

I apologise Daniel, i complete missed your reply up until just now, thank you for answering my questions, i have better clarity now, and better direction.

One question though...

daniel said;

I am also very interested in CS Lewis' idea that "everything becomes more and more itself," and feel that is happening quite openly now. It will be interesting to see how this progresses.

Could you provide an example to clarify your point, i'm not sure what you mean?