Earthlings, Chiaroscuros and Sfumatos, United to Save the Saviors
Blossom's May 31st Channeling including funny replies from SOE
I love when the FoL tells Blossom to STFU :P
We are ready to begin.
Yep, I can feel that quite strongly … off you go … (not literally, a colloquial expression!)
The changes that have been occurring during these past months on your planet have had an adverse affect in some respects, and yet we are feeling your questioning once again.
You know me … I’m only human!
By this we mean that continually there are marked changes that may interfere with the process of that which we call progression.
And yet, forgive me; I thought you said that the vibration has been moving up?
We have not changed our position on this either. It would be suitable if you would allow us to continue.
Oops, sorry, be my guest.
Wherein there are those who consider the overall changes to be as we say ‘adverse’ this is not so the case. This is our point in conversation this day. Because of the ups and downs, one has allowed the ‘downs’ to overide the ups. This is certainly not for all, but our subject at this time is to lift the vibration of those who have fallen into the trap of this adversity. They have come to see it as a way of being ... when in actual fact it is the opposite. It is showing you how things ‘are not’. Yet sometimes the ‘pull’ into the doldrums can be quite enticing, simply because the strength of one is diminishing and it ‘feel’s' easier to ‘give in.’
We say to you … This above all things must cease. It is for you to recognise what is taking place. It is for you to remember that this would be presented to you. It is for you to recall that when it ‘arrived’ you would KNOW that it was to be quashed by the mere thought of joy. That is all it takes. We speak of this as we are aware that there are many who are ‘feeling the pinch’ so to speak. Concerns of how’s and what if’s are over powering the mind in a negative fashion for many.
REMEMBER WHO YOU ARE.
Remember this is temporary as the transition continues to move through into its brighter dawn. It is imperative for you to allow ‘The Glory’ into your Beings. To overcome that which is presenting itself as 'IS' ... When it ‘IS NOT’
You are speaking in this way … these last few channellings … of the ‘IT’, the ‘IS’ etc. Can you help us with that?
Surely. Your ‘IS-NESS’ is simply the Truth of you. What ‘IS’ is just that. For it ‘IS’ nothing else. It cannot be anything else for it would be ‘IS NOT ’ if it was not ‘IS’. Are you following?
Yes.
Therefore, a reality forms from something that 'IS NOT', if one does not accept what ‘IS’
Now I am getting a little lost … not really sure of your point , with all respect.
This IS our point. Again there is difficulty because of the use of words being sometimes inadequate in order to explain.
As you now sit and write Blossom, you are in the moment of what IS. It is clear to you and ourselves that this IS happening, would you agree?
Yes.
Yet, there is a space also where that ‘IS-NESS’ ‘IS NOT ’. Would you agree?
I would if I knew what you were talking about! Where IS the ‘IS NOT’ space … or should I say … why does the ‘IS NOT’ space come in to it if it IS NOT there? Another pill anyone??
To show to you exactly that. It is in the space of ‘not being’. In order for something ‘to be’, one has to recognise it for being there. If it ‘IS NOT’ there, it cannot be recognised. It’s only recognition of ‘NOT being’ is because of ‘the being’ … to prove its existence of non existence.
Could you sort of … go back to basics here? … I do get what you are saying, but I am unsure of the point it is making … just trying to follow you … if you follow me!
So we would then perhaps move on to the what ‘IS’ real and what ‘IS NOT’ real … Through understanding the what ‘IS’ happening, because we know what ‘IS NOT’ happening. How we wish we could express this in a more simple fashion.
With you all the way on that one.
What if we were to say to you now to replace the what ‘IS’ ( i.e. saying you know that sitting writing in this moment ‘IS’ what is taking place) … with the ‘IS NOT’. So that you are ‘not’ sitting writing at the computer although you think you are. What if we were to say to you, that ‘IS NOT’ your True reality. Your True what ‘IS’ is in fact the opposite, so therefore your ‘IS-NESS’ is the ‘IS NOT-NESS .’
Welcome to the home for the bewildered!!!
Can you put it in a way that makes sense???
Perhaps we have stretched this a little too far and complicated a matter that needs to remain simple in order for it to be understood. Yet we cannot find accurate words to uncomplicate that which we desire to express.
Ok, let me recap … what you are saying is that what we know to be our reality is not our reality. So that everything that we think ‘IS’ our reality, actually ‘IS NOT’.
Correct.
So … what IS our reality …
Your reality is in the ‘IS NOT-NESS ’.
Here we go again, yet I think I’m grasping it.
Your form … the manifested form of anything is simply that … ‘manifested form’. A created energy that has come from what ‘IS NOT’ (for it was not there until created) So .. If we with respect … categorize you as a 'manifested creation', you are a ‘moulded’ energy in that form at this time … and yet it ‘IS NOT’ what you Truly are. What you Truly are is ‘energy’, without form. Simply energy. And that is your True ‘IS- NESS ’. Therefore, what you think you are now, ‘IS NOT’ what you Truly are.
And yet you talk about the ‘IS-NESS’ of everything. You say everything simply ‘IS’. Didn’t you say earlier in the piece … if memory serves me … ‘your ‘IS-NESS’ IS the Truth of you?
Are you ready … Everything IS what ‘IS NOT’. This is the only way we can try to explain to you the ‘non reality’ of this ‘time space’ you reside in upon the earth plane. Many of you are aware that you are in human form and yet your essence is not of physical flesh. The part that ‘IS NOT’ physical flesh ‘IS’ you. Yet, you confine yourselves often to behaving in a manner that would assume that it is you, and that you are nothing else. When in actual fact you are EVERYTHING else.
Although I jest, I do know what you are saying. And because ‘all is as should be’ I Trust that it has been offered this way for a reason. It is like with White Clouds words, they are given in a manner so that you have to do the thinking for yourself. It is the most efficient way to learn.
We feel this is enough for one to ponder upon for this day. And yet we also add that it ‘IS NOT’ for one to take this simply at face value. There is a lot more ‘behind the scenes’ if one cares to look and allow their thinking to take them to a deeper place of comprehension, regarding the existence of this aspect of themselves that accepts they are actually of the ‘IS NOT’. It will bring them to an understanding of far greater things than that of which they had confined what they assumed they knew, into a place of new beginnings. Taking that leap we spoke of and finding oneself in a new place with such an open outlook to the vast expanse of newness one now finds themselves with in.
It is of much excitement that we are able to move on to the next stage/phase with you. Can you not feel dear friends the turnaround in energy as the Lightness lifts you up where you belong?
Queue for song! Well, thanks for that. Again, it will be one of those that I Trust will make sense when I read it back, as I have no idea at the time if it was or not. In Love, Laughter and enlightenment!!!!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ilikepies on -
well thats just a problem of semantics, its what we're willing to classify as "empirical evidence" as I understand it empiricism is firmly rooted in that which can be observed, I think a better classification of what your talking about would be something along the lines of "intuitive" rather than "empirical" but again often debates will really just be two people using the same word and giving it different meanings
Jayden said:I understand you pies, and I would like to say here is that just because it can't be filmed or if it's only observable through my experience doesn't make something I understand not verifiable through "empirical evidence". And I never expect anyone to believe me. That is silly.
Thank you very much for explaining yourself. I was indeed feeling a bit cornered.
ilikepies said:thats all well and good but again, it all exists in your mind, to me you cant really call that real observable proof, real observable proof can be filmed, it can be demonstrated. the inner workings of the mind, having a feeling of something or connecting thoughts to real life or feeling like energy healing did something and all that is something that I personally believe to me mainly a result of the placebo effect. You can go on and on about how you wish you could prove it and ohh it cant be proved but i know its real and thats fine but ultimately you cant expect everyone else to just buy into that
Jayden said:I ask what is proof? If it is empirical proof, then I have that through direct observation and experience, that is all I am saying. But just because someone else hasn't been through the same things I have doesn't make them wrong to believe what they believe about reality. In this world, I have come to find that nothing is wrong with ANYTHING because all that we see as wrong will always be transmuted in an evolutionary way to the betterment of individuals, one way or another.
My experience with some scientists is that they are completely locked into materialistic philosophy. They automatically reject "occult" things based on "no physical evidence". Physical evidence is not the same as empirical evidence in my understanding. This is where I am coming from when I say "some are close minded." SOME. LOL Not all!! Just because they can't stick some probe up my butt or any other orifice to measure life force energy doesn't mean it's not very real for me. It is very, very real. It is like having an arm and someone telling you it's not there or it's just part of your imagination or your mind playing tricks on you, just because they can't see, touch or experience it. This is where I'm coming from. Yes, I would LOVE to be in some studies! Hook me up to an EEG machine and do some readings on my brain waves (but what does that prove exactly, that my brain is there or what?? LOL)! I would love to prove some personal experiences empirically, but as with any test all the controls should be accounted for. The mind can be "tuned" to be more receptive. I would love to work with open minded scientists, rather than have my personally proven observations swatted down right away, those should be part of the test I think, because it's a parameter that got me to my observations/experiences. A lot of scientific studies into "positive thinking" do not have certain controls in place, which is why they have mixed results. But some scientists actually take into account the individual's personality, and those studies show better results. I am seeing now that some studies are actually taking into account someone's intent which is very, very important. To me, intent drives things. But again I speak through personal experience and I cannot prove or disprove anything to anyone. :) I only challenge people to prove or disprove these things through their own life experiences. Or not. ;)
DeusEx said:I think it would be fair to ask about you personal experience with closed minded scientists and if you mention college professors, it's an instant fail because we know there are usually in a class of their own :P The problem is spiritualist make these claims about scientists without providing any verifiable proof that they are really "close minded". I guess they think that by repeating the same line over and over it will become truth over time. The fact is most scientist that stay current in their field are not close minded or else they would fall back pretty fast. Honestly, I have never met a "close minded" scientist. If some of these spiritualists weren't pussies and only in it for fame and money they would get in touch with some research programs that want to actively study these phenomena. Have you ever talked to anyone from SETI? Those guys practically orgasm at the thought of alien contact. If Blossom or any of these others wanted to lend some credence to what they are doing they would provide something quantifiable, but as always they just make up a piss poor excuse and skulk away.
-
Permalink Reply by ilikepies on
-
yah well thats empiricism vs rationalism, Honestly I dont know where I'd put experience like "oh i felt that i can use energy to heal and manifest things" in terms of those categories, seems more of a vague kind of existentialist thing, I find it hard to accept that you TRULY know without a shadow of a doubt that experiences like that are real and solid proof, it seems like it must all fall into this kind of vague improvable inner feeling, when people say "i feel gods love and god spoke to me and therefore gays die in hell" (extreme example i know) you wouldnt exactly posit that as either proper empiricism or rationalism, people tend to just call that "blind faith" I'd think that most people wouldn't want to classify any form of "observation" that can ONLY ever be proved to that person him or herself in their own mind
Jayden said:Possibly "Intuitive". But my understanding of empirical evidence is something that can be verified by observation or direct experience rather than logic or theory.
ilikepies said:well thats just a problem of semantics, its what we're willing to classify as "empirical evidence" as I understand it empiricism is firmly rooted in that which can be observed, I think a better classification of what your talking about would be something along the lines of "intuitive" rather than "empirical" but again often debates will really just be two people using the same word and giving it different meanings
Jayden said:I understand you pies, and I would like to say here is that just because it can't be filmed or if it's only observable through my experience doesn't make something I understand not verifiable through "empirical evidence". And I never expect anyone to believe me. That is silly.
Thank you very much for explaining yourself. I was indeed feeling a bit cornered.
ilikepies said:thats all well and good but again, it all exists in your mind, to me you cant really call that real observable proof, real observable proof can be filmed, it can be demonstrated. the inner workings of the mind, having a feeling of something or connecting thoughts to real life or feeling like energy healing did something and all that is something that I personally believe to me mainly a result of the placebo effect. You can go on and on about how you wish you could prove it and ohh it cant be proved but i know its real and thats fine but ultimately you cant expect everyone else to just buy into that
Jayden said:I ask what is proof? If it is empirical proof, then I have that through direct observation and experience, that is all I am saying. But just because someone else hasn't been through the same things I have doesn't make them wrong to believe what they believe about reality. In this world, I have come to find that nothing is wrong with ANYTHING because all that we see as wrong will always be transmuted in an evolutionary way to the betterment of individuals, one way or another.
My experience with some scientists is that they are completely locked into materialistic philosophy. They automatically reject "occult" things based on "no physical evidence". Physical evidence is not the same as empirical evidence in my understanding. This is where I am coming from when I say "some are close minded." SOME. LOL Not all!! Just because they can't stick some probe up my butt or any other orifice to measure life force energy doesn't mean it's not very real for me. It is very, very real. It is like having an arm and someone telling you it's not there or it's just part of your imagination or your mind playing tricks on you, just because they can't see, touch or experience it. This is where I'm coming from. Yes, I would LOVE to be in some studies! Hook me up to an EEG machine and do some readings on my brain waves (but what does that prove exactly, that my brain is there or what?? LOL)! I would love to prove some personal experiences empirically, but as with any test all the controls should be accounted for. The mind can be "tuned" to be more receptive. I would love to work with open minded scientists, rather than have my personally proven observations swatted down right away, those should be part of the test I think, because it's a parameter that got me to my observations/experiences. A lot of scientific studies into "positive thinking" do not have certain controls in place, which is why they have mixed results. But some scientists actually take into account the individual's personality, and those studies show better results. I am seeing now that some studies are actually taking into account someone's intent which is very, very important. To me, intent drives things. But again I speak through personal experience and I cannot prove or disprove anything to anyone. :) I only challenge people to prove or disprove these things through their own life experiences. Or not. ;)
DeusEx said:I think it would be fair to ask about you personal experience with closed minded scientists and if you mention college professors, it's an instant fail because we know there are usually in a class of their own :P The problem is spiritualist make these claims about scientists without providing any verifiable proof that they are really "close minded". I guess they think that by repeating the same line over and over it will become truth over time. The fact is most scientist that stay current in their field are not close minded or else they would fall back pretty fast. Honestly, I have never met a "close minded" scientist. If some of these spiritualists weren't pussies and only in it for fame and money they would get in touch with some research programs that want to actively study these phenomena. Have you ever talked to anyone from SETI? Those guys practically orgasm at the thought of alien contact. If Blossom or any of these others wanted to lend some credence to what they are doing they would provide something quantifiable, but as always they just make up a piss poor excuse and skulk away.
-
Permalink Reply by ilikepies on
-
Don't worry about "frustrating" anyone, this isnt SOE where any questioning of Brads divine will is treated as pure evil
but yah you say "its not vague to me" thats the same kind of thing a super crazy christian person would say about how they know in their hearts the spirit of jesus is communicating to them, it just forever stays in lala land though, and thats how i experienced this whole spiritulaity new age thing, at first it may seem like your growing or evolving or learning more about the world but ultimately..it never goes anywhere, its no sure fire way to fix your life, people can't mainfest things by thinking about them, people can't make everything ok in the world by loving themselves, its just sort of a nice thought people like to be comforted by but its always this "oh some day, some day things will totally manifest or some day i will totally ascend and this is all a process and some day this will happen and dimension 8d and tra la la" I just think its a road to nowhere littered with the same rehashed kind of dumbed down philosophical and spiritual concepts that have been going around for years and years now
Jayden said:That's the rub, it's not vague to me, but anyway the point to any spiritualism is really deconstructing negativity within the self so that you are overall happier, more vital, more joyful etc, and you don't have to believe in anything to get there, just go through the processes.
Really all the things called paranormal are just occurrences, and are to be treated as such because they will simply detract from the real quest- liberation from suffering and not have anything stand in the way of love- all else will result in a debate of semantics and spiral into "this is this and that is that and I know for sure".
"I'd think that most people wouldn't want to classify any form of "observation" that can ONLY ever be proved to that person him or herself in their own mind"
Life has taught me otherwise. But those are my lessons. Not yours. And I don't expect anyone to believe me. I just prove/disprove things in my life. Whether or not they are due to 'metaphysical things' or not doesn't subtract from results I get.
I honestly don't even know why I'm talking anymore. LOL I feel like I'm frustrating you guys unnecessarily.
ilikepies said:yah well thats empiricism vs rationalism, Honestly I dont know where I'd put experience like "oh i felt that i can use energy to heal and manifest things" in terms of those categories, seems more of a vague kind of existentialist thing, I find it hard to accept that you TRULY know without a shadow of a doubt that experiences like that are real and solid proof, it seems like it must all fall into this kind of vague improvable inner feeling, when people say "i feel gods love and god spoke to me and therefore gays die in hell" (extreme example i know) you wouldnt exactly posit that as either proper empiricism or rationalism, people tend to just call that "blind faith" I'd think that most people wouldn't want to classify any form of "observation" that can ONLY ever be proved to that person him or herself in their own mind
Jayden said:Possibly "Intuitive". But my understanding of empirical evidence is something that can be verified by observation or direct experience rather than logic or theory.
ilikepies said:well thats just a problem of semantics, its what we're willing to classify as "empirical evidence" as I understand it empiricism is firmly rooted in that which can be observed, I think a better classification of what your talking about would be something along the lines of "intuitive" rather than "empirical" but again often debates will really just be two people using the same word and giving it different meanings
Jayden said:I understand you pies, and I would like to say here is that just because it can't be filmed or if it's only observable through my experience doesn't make something I understand not verifiable through "empirical evidence". And I never expect anyone to believe me. That is silly.
Thank you very much for explaining yourself. I was indeed feeling a bit cornered.
ilikepies said:thats all well and good but again, it all exists in your mind, to me you cant really call that real observable proof, real observable proof can be filmed, it can be demonstrated. the inner workings of the mind, having a feeling of something or connecting thoughts to real life or feeling like energy healing did something and all that is something that I personally believe to me mainly a result of the placebo effect. You can go on and on about how you wish you could prove it and ohh it cant be proved but i know its real and thats fine but ultimately you cant expect everyone else to just buy into that
Jayden said:I ask what is proof? If it is empirical proof, then I have that through direct observation and experience, that is all I am saying. But just because someone else hasn't been through the same things I have doesn't make them wrong to believe what they believe about reality. In this world, I have come to find that nothing is wrong with ANYTHING because all that we see as wrong will always be transmuted in an evolutionary way to the betterment of individuals, one way or another.
My experience with some scientists is that they are completely locked into materialistic philosophy. They automatically reject "occult" things based on "no physical evidence". Physical evidence is not the same as empirical evidence in my understanding. This is where I am coming from when I say "some are close minded." SOME. LOL Not all!! Just because they can't stick some probe up my butt or any other orifice to measure life force energy doesn't mean it's not very real for me. It is very, very real. It is like having an arm and someone telling you it's not there or it's just part of your imagination or your mind playing tricks on you, just because they can't see, touch or experience it. This is where I'm coming from. Yes, I would LOVE to be in some studies! Hook me up to an EEG machine and do some readings on my brain waves (but what does that prove exactly, that my brain is there or what?? LOL)! I would love to prove some personal experiences empirically, but as with any test all the controls should be accounted for. The mind can be "tuned" to be more receptive. I would love to work with open minded scientists, rather than have my personally proven observations swatted down right away, those should be part of the test I think, because it's a parameter that got me to my observations/experiences. A lot of scientific studies into "positive thinking" do not have certain controls in place, which is why they have mixed results. But some scientists actually take into account the individual's personality, and those studies show better results. I am seeing now that some studies are actually taking into account someone's intent which is very, very important. To me, intent drives things. But again I speak through personal experience and I cannot prove or disprove anything to anyone. :) I only challenge people to prove or disprove these things through their own life experiences. Or not. ;)
DeusEx said:I think it would be fair to ask about you personal experience with closed minded scientists and if you mention college professors, it's an instant fail because we know there are usually in a class of their own :P The problem is spiritualist make these claims about scientists without providing any verifiable proof that they are really "close minded". I guess they think that by repeating the same line over and over it will become truth over time. The fact is most scientist that stay current in their field are not close minded or else they would fall back pretty fast. Honestly, I have never met a "close minded" scientist. If some of these spiritualists weren't pussies and only in it for fame and money they would get in touch with some research programs that want to actively study these phenomena. Have you ever talked to anyone from SETI? Those guys practically orgasm at the thought of alien contact. If Blossom or any of these others wanted to lend some credence to what they are doing they would provide something quantifiable, but as always they just make up a piss poor excuse and skulk away.
-
Permalink Reply by ilikepies on
-
thats all fine about living life to the fullest but the thing that a lot of these spiritual people are saying (not saying your one of them) is farrr from "you have one life you are a biological entity on this planet you only have the time you are alive to make the best of when you die there is nothing" very very far from it, as Brad stated in one of his whiny shittily written pieces "im terrified to die but its ok because turns out im a magic alien soul" thats the kind of things I'm against, ultimately to comfort people from their fear of the dark you have to posit some sort of prize or some other existance at the end of it and frequently (because people of the human race tend to frequently be miserable) its not even an after your dead thing but a "this will happen in your life" thing. To me this whole new age thing is getting away from the interesting parts of it (the SCIENCE of quantum physics) and too far into this religious territory where everyone calls each other gods and is told to love themselves and realize they're all great and everythings gonna be fine, thats how i see it but again thats just more of my general view of this whole new age spirituality thing
Jayden said:There's the thing, life isn't supposed to be 'fixed'. LOL Just live it, dammit, live it to it's fullest and love like mad, don't let ego get in the way but people are fucked up and they let EGO in the way so they can't love. That's the reason for murder, violence, rape, perversion etc is that people have forgotten how to love each other without mind getting in the way. don't get me wrong, mind is a wonderful thing but it can stop life just as much as it can explore life.
It's the same thing because they are parrots. They say it and they don't understand the mentality behind it. They see Jesus at the end of the bed or some other "paranormal thing" and they go OMG there's the evidence, which it's NOT, it's just something that happened. Evidence is in RESULTS.
ilikepies said:Don't worry about "frustrating" anyone, this isnt SOE where any questioning of Brads divine will is treated as pure evil
but yah you say "its not vague to me" thats the same kind of thing a super crazy christian person would say about how they know in their hearts the spirit of jesus is communicating to them, it just forever stays in lala land though, and thats how i experienced this whole spiritulaity new age thing, at first it may seem like your growing or evolving or learning more about the world but ultimately..it never goes anywhere, its no sure fire way to fix your life, people can't mainfest things by thinking about them, people can't make everything ok in the world by loving themselves, its just sort of a nice thought people like to be comforted by but its always this "oh some day, some day things will totally manifest or some day i will totally ascend and this is all a process and some day this will happen and dimension 8d and tra la la" I just think its a road to nowhere littered with the same rehashed kind of dumbed down philosophical and spiritual concepts that have been going around for years and years now
Jayden said:That's the rub, it's not vague to me, but anyway the point to any spiritualism is really deconstructing negativity within the self so that you are overall happier, more vital, more joyful etc, and you don't have to believe in anything to get there, just go through the processes.
Really all the things called paranormal are just occurrences, and are to be treated as such because they will simply detract from the real quest- liberation from suffering and not have anything stand in the way of love- all else will result in a debate of semantics and spiral into "this is this and that is that and I know for sure". "I'd think that most people wouldn't want to classify any form of "observation" that can ONLY ever be proved to that person him or herself in their own mind"
Life has taught me otherwise. But those are my lessons. Not yours. And I don't expect anyone to believe me. I just prove/disprove things in my life. Whether or not they are due to 'metaphysical things' or not doesn't subtract from results I get.
I honestly don't even know why I'm talking anymore. LOL I feel like I'm frustrating you guys unnecessarily.
ilikepies said:yah well thats empiricism vs rationalism, Honestly I dont know where I'd put experience like "oh i felt that i can use energy to heal and manifest things" in terms of those categories, seems more of a vague kind of existentialist thing, I find it hard to accept that you TRULY know without a shadow of a doubt that experiences like that are real and solid proof, it seems like it must all fall into this kind of vague improvable inner feeling, when people say "i feel gods love and god spoke to me and therefore gays die in hell" (extreme example i know) you wouldnt exactly posit that as either proper empiricism or rationalism, people tend to just call that "blind faith" I'd think that most people wouldn't want to classify any form of "observation" that can ONLY ever be proved to that person him or herself in their own mind
Jayden said:Possibly "Intuitive". But my understanding of empirical evidence is something that can be verified by observation or direct experience rather than logic or theory.
ilikepies said:well thats just a problem of semantics, its what we're willing to classify as "empirical evidence" as I understand it empiricism is firmly rooted in that which can be observed, I think a better classification of what your talking about would be something along the lines of "intuitive" rather than "empirical" but again often debates will really just be two people using the same word and giving it different meanings
Jayden said:I understand you pies, and I would like to say here is that just because it can't be filmed or if it's only observable through my experience doesn't make something I understand not verifiable through "empirical evidence". And I never expect anyone to believe me. That is silly.
Thank you very much for explaining yourself. I was indeed feeling a bit cornered.
ilikepies said:thats all well and good but again, it all exists in your mind, to me you cant really call that real observable proof, real observable proof can be filmed, it can be demonstrated. the inner workings of the mind, having a feeling of something or connecting thoughts to real life or feeling like energy healing did something and all that is something that I personally believe to me mainly a result of the placebo effect. You can go on and on about how you wish you could prove it and ohh it cant be proved but i know its real and thats fine but ultimately you cant expect everyone else to just buy into that
Jayden said:I ask what is proof? If it is empirical proof, then I have that through direct observation and experience, that is all I am saying. But just because someone else hasn't been through the same things I have doesn't make them wrong to believe what they believe about reality. In this world, I have come to find that nothing is wrong with ANYTHING because all that we see as wrong will always be transmuted in an evolutionary way to the betterment of individuals, one way or another.
My experience with some scientists is that they are completely locked into materialistic philosophy. They automatically reject "occult" things based on "no physical evidence". Physical evidence is not the same as empirical evidence in my understanding. This is where I am coming from when I say "some are close minded." SOME. LOL Not all!! Just because they can't stick some probe up my butt or any other orifice to measure life force energy doesn't mean it's not very real for me. It is very, very real. It is like having an arm and someone telling you it's not there or it's just part of your imagination or your mind playing tricks on you, just because they can't see, touch or experience it. This is where I'm coming from. Yes, I would LOVE to be in some studies! Hook me up to an EEG machine and do some readings on my brain waves (but what does that prove exactly, that my brain is there or what?? LOL)! I would love to prove some personal experiences empirically, but as with any test all the controls should be accounted for. The mind can be "tuned" to be more receptive. I would love to work with open minded scientists, rather than have my personally proven observations swatted down right away, those should be part of the test I think, because it's a parameter that got me to my observations/experiences. A lot of scientific studies into "positive thinking" do not have certain controls in place, which is why they have mixed results. But some scientists actually take into account the individual's personality, and those studies show better results. I am seeing now that some studies are actually taking into account someone's intent which is very, very important. To me, intent drives things. But again I speak through personal experience and I cannot prove or disprove anything to anyone. :) I only challenge people to prove or disprove these things through their own life experiences. Or not. ;)
DeusEx said:I think it would be fair to ask about you personal experience with closed minded scientists and if you mention college professors, it's an instant fail because we know there are usually in a class of their own :P The problem is spiritualist make these claims about scientists without providing any verifiable proof that they are really "close minded". I guess they think that by repeating the same line over and over it will become truth over time. The fact is most scientist that stay current in their field are not close minded or else they would fall back pretty fast. Honestly, I have never met a "close minded" scientist. If some of these spiritualists weren't pussies and only in it for fame and money they would get in touch with some research programs that want to actively study these phenomena. Have you ever talked to anyone from SETI? Those guys practically orgasm at the thought of alien contact. If Blossom or any of these others wanted to lend some credence to what they are doing they would provide something quantifiable, but as always they just make up a piss poor excuse and skulk away.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben on -
The videos by Qualiasoup are interesting, reasonable, knowledgeable, comprehensible, and convincing.
There are a couple of things that don’t sit well with me though. Qualia’s view of science is borderline utopian. First of all, he seemingly fails to recognize that one cannot speak of science in general terms. For example, film scientists and philosophy scientists approach matters differently than the non-existent “Unified Science” (my term) Qualia waxes lyrical about.
Second, though Qualia entertains the notion of science as completely benign and open minded, it is not at all an indisputable given. Many scientists (both fellow students and professors) I met in college are every bit as closed minded, prejudiced and stubborn as religious or spiritual extremists and will dismiss certain claims with no intention whatsoever to seriously investigate matters.
Think, for instance, of how reluctant scientists were and still are to recognize Parapsychology as a legitimate scientific discipline. Academics tend to be of the opinion that “weird phenomena” do not deserve serious investigation and instead should be dismissed off the bat as nonsense. (A similar thing happened in colleges all around the world when “popular culture studies” were developed—the consensus was that whereas it’s rewarding to analyze serious literature, analyzing dime store publications is a waste of time). No matter how Qualia would love to refute it, snobbery is not at all uncommon in the academic world.
In his videos Qualia often says something to the effect of, “Science doesn’t have all the answers. If something can’t be rationally explained, scientists keep an open mind.” What he really seems to be saying is, “Sooner or later science will provide us with a rational explanation.”
Same thing with James Randi. No matter how much I admire the man and his accomplishments, I do not entirely believe his claim that he’s in this business hoping to encounter genuine paranormal phenomena. Instead, being able to debunk paranormal activity seems to sooth him.
Theists and atheists have more in common than they’d like to admit.
As far as channeling is concerned, even the highly successful Neale Donald Walsch (of “Conversations with God” fame) includes disclaimers in his publications and frequently mentions in his books that it’s entirely possible that he is not at all communing with God, but simply using an alternative way to express his ideas, theories, and beliefs. In doing this, he is not at all dodging responsibility; pointing out the possibility of a rational explanation helps his readers to not blindly accept and or act upon the shared information. After all, one needn’t quote Montesquieu to remind people of what can happen if certain texts are taken as truth.
Though people such as Blossom Goodchild have sometimes expressed self doubt, they’ve opted not to add disclaimers to their (online) publications and, at the end of the day, wholeheartedly believe to be in contact with otherworldly beings. When channelers keep using non-sequiturs (“we have come here to express our love and support”) and fail to receive and share substantial information, the most logical explanation is that they are indeed talking to themselves. That is why alarm bells should go off every time a channeler starts using phrases such as: “this WILL happen!”; “100% true!” and “This is a PROMISE!”
Goodchild took things as far as a channeler could when she shared the subjective “message” regarding October 14th 2008 with the world, completely oblivious to the many flaws (for example, why would otherworldly beings telepathically contact only one earthling to make their life altering visitation known?) that even the most nonscientific persons should be able to point out.
-
Permalink Reply by DeusEx on -
I thought this was an interesting article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6425036.ece
I'm sure this will be beaten to death by the new age gurus :P
- 1
- 2
About
© 2009 Created by LeavingSOE on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
