After some amazing interactions in our previous topic, "Genius Changing -- Transformation -- Stepping Through the Door ", I agree with Anna -- who provided the last post in that topic -- that it's time to transition and thus evolve our topic further.
This topic can certainly be used to further explore transformation, but what I'd like to add to this discussion is the concepts of "intention," "manifestation," and their relationship to "transformation." I've also re-posted Anna's comments below as the first comment, since they provide the perfect lead in to this conversation.
Also remember there is another active topic going on, entitled, "Genius Having an Identity Crisis -- How Economics Might Save/Destroy the World ."
I'm very curious and enthused to see where this discussion might lead us.
Please, dive in,
Christopher
P.S. As always remember that to see the comments in a separate window, click on the "Comments" link. To see the comments in the body of the topic, click "Links to this Post"
Views of those commenting have not been checked for accuracy and do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog publisher or his associates.
Thomas, you're very sweet to acknowledge me in your highlights. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteBeing a relative newcomer to this growing family, I often choose to sit back and observe, being sensitive to the chemistry and flow of the discussion and somewhat reluctant to speak too much (when I get started, I have a difficult time stopping).
When I made my wish at the beginning of this topic -- that we would go beyond the comfortable -- I could not have imagined that the process would be so rich.
I don't know about the rest of you, but if you really look at what's transpired for you internally during this discussion, my guess is that, like me, you've been doing your own private little workshop. How could we not, with the depth and breadth of what has been discussed here.
I'm in deep appreciation for being included here and honored in the variety of ways that people express their respect (some as challenges, some as compliments, some as observers).
Since Thomas re-invited the question I posed earlier regarding intention, however, I will share with you what was going on for me when I asked the question (and Ellio, your history and own experience will likely provide more depth on this topic than mine).
We have to more fully look at the unconscious mind in order to grasp the complexity of intention and of its weaker cousin, affirmation. Early advocates of positive thought from Norman Vincent Peale, to James Allen, to Paul J. Myers, all tapped into a deeper sense of spirituality, one could say (and yes, guys, here I go getting spiritual).
While there are those who argue that these early advocates of positive thought were influenced by religions from India and other Eastern climes, others feel strongly that they leaned more on a mystical understanding of faith spoken of by Jesus. I don't know that it matters ultimately, where they drew their inspiration from.
What we now understand better, though, is that these early thought pioneers of Western spirituality: a) either assumed that their readers knew of certain fundamentals regarding the process; b) had incorporated the underlying principles so well themselves that they felt it could go without saying; or c) possibly did not know the principles which we are now discovering (and I’d like to think that this last option is the one we would choose to make ourselves feel better, though it is likely not, in my estimation, true).
The principles to which I refer are those regarding the unconscious mind and how it functions in relation to the conscious mind. To use an analogy, the unconscious mind runs the security system for the body. It monitors all biological processes and it stores all information that pertains to what has brought pain and pleasure to our system. I think it is also valuable to consider that Western scientists are now beginning to consider and accept, in some cases, early understanding from ancient cultures that have always suggested that the unconscious mind is existent throughout the body and operates at the cellular (some even say molecular) level.
It is also worth remembering that much of the survival-based encoding of our unconscious minds took place during pre-verbal and early verbal stages. Thus, one could deduce, much of the encoding was done non-rationally using the best information available and the best method of direct interpretation that one could do at such an age (the both of which were obviously less than optimum for adult functioning).
Making a rather long subject, much shorter, my point is this. Affirmations are made at a conscious level. If there is counter programming already in place within the unconscious mind, that internal security system will attempt to eradicate ideas that it has deemed unsafe and will operate in stealth mode to undo the best laid plans. It is possible to bludgeon the unconscious so consistently and repetitiously with an affirmation that the amount of data input eventually overrides the previously held unconscious belief (that’s what we call the “I don’t know that I don’t know” category) and in so doing, a person is able to forge ahead and “overcome.” (Many modalities of therapy attempt to approach this process differently, by “uncovering” the mistaken notions of the past and to unveil the “identities” that we have created for ourselves based on such early-stage decision-making.)
My goodness, this is difficult to explain in so few words. The challenge I have with systems like “The Secret”, and other basic affirmation approaches like “Think and Grow Rich”, etc., is not that they don’t work -- but that they are very cumbersome, antiquated methods that often create such a high failure rate that many people give up and believe that the “power of intention” is a bogus myth created by hucksters (and sadly the irresponsibility with which some have approached this science in the past makes one wonder about the category in which they were operating).
Nonetheless, there are several very essential point that nearly all such systems miss: a) without acknowledging and reprogramming the body/mind consciousness (the security system), we are working against ourselves as we attempt to “manifest”; b) the ability to fully use the power of intention (or faith as some call it) to manifest, requires that one must already be in attunement with the vibratory frequency of both the “spiritual” and the “physical” form of that which is to be manifest -- without this attunement, one will either not manifest what is intended; will manifest it incompletely; or will manifest it, but then not be able to hold it (thus it will again disappear out of one’s life).
I’d be very interested in hearing from others in our midst here who are familiar (and likely more familiar) with these principles via their research and/or own experience. When we get down to the question of attunement, then we are really ready to have a conversation about “what is transformation?” and “what is intention?”
My apologies for being so terribly long-winded, but there is an opening in the flow of this conversation that was perfect for introducing these aspects and I did not want to miss it.
Anna
I want to share my favorite Intention exercise, try it on and see if you like it:
ReplyDeleteTry on the view that the Universe is one big giant intention fulfillment machine, that the universe is lined up to fulfill your intentions, even if you don't know what you are intending. Take on that you are intending and creating even without being aware of it.
#1
Create an intention for specific result. The intention must be
specific. If you create an intention that you find "money", you could find a magazine with the word "money" on it.
#2
Become aware of your counter intentions. They will be something that is often hidden from your view, something you are making wrong, something you have reasons for.
RE-POSTED IN THIS TOPIC WITH TOM'S PERMISSION:
ReplyDelete2500 years ago Buddha said, “We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make our world.”
500 years ago William Shakespeare said, “Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so.”
60 years ago Mahatma Gandhi said, “One must be the change one wishes to see in the world.”
50 years ago Napoleon Hill said. “Whatever your mind can conceive and believe it can achieve.
You become what you think about most of the time.
Successful people think about what they want and how to get it most of the time.
Less successful people think about what they don’t want and their problems and difficulties and who’s to blame and the people they don’t like and the problems they’ve had in their past.
-From 22 years of research and thousands of interviews by Brian Tracy and his team
I LOVE TO QUOTE WISE PEOPLE. I HOPE THIS I OK SOMETIMES, ITS INTERESTING TO SEE PERSEPCTIVES THROUGHOUT TIME.
Best,
Tommy
Okay… I have what might be a dumb or naive question.
ReplyDeleteIf everybody's running around manifesting all the time -- and some people say that's what's happening whether we know it or not... you know? -- then how do we make sure that what we're manifesting is not making someone else's life more awful... or difficult... or is creating suffering for someone?
Seems like this whole manifesting thing could be like teaching kids how to light a little match but not teaching them about the gnarly-assed power of fire.
Am I lame? Or does anybody else wonder about this?
Pondering my pondering,
Jamie
I haven’t commented much in this string, because I tend in this area as in many other things, to be something of a minimalist. It might be hard to believe that, given the length of many of my posts, but it is actually true everywhere but in the realm of words. Well, my waistline could hardly be described as minimalist, either, but most of you don’t know me, so forget I said anything…
ReplyDeleteLike most of us, I took all the seminars (not to mention ardently pursuing that double major in recreational chemistry and reproductive biology during my college and music years) but in the course of completing my professional track in Chinese medicine, I became something of a traditionalist, not in an antiquarian sense, but in the sense of being deeply attracted to encountering fundamental principles as close to their sources as I could get. Words like intention, manifestation and transformation seem to me to have become very heavily freighted, as Dot P. and Anna and Chris so articulately and gracefully pointed out, with meanings drawn from modern American individualism and materialism, and I have not been able, particularly in recent years, to develop an enthusiasm for the movements and methods that have most fully embraced and utilized those terms. I have no antipathy to those who find meaning there, but haven’t found much there for myself.
Dot P. last week and Anna today have both touched very persuasively on an area that I think is very, very important for moving this discussion forward. I practice in a tradition that never had a Cartesian schism, and in which emotions and thoughts and habits are regarded as at least as important in determining health as chemistry and biology. There is a rather beautiful dictum in one of the old books that says “Our bodies weep the tears our eyes refuse to shed.” The rather less delicate shorthand for that in my world is “Free your mind, and your ass will follow.” Anna alluded to something that I have come, through much experience, to believe without question. The brain is really a whole body organ, if not technically, at least in practical terms. For all intents and purposes, the body IS the subconscious mind. One major focus of my work is addiction, and nowhere are the patterns that Dot P. and Anna were referring to more apparent.
Because of this, I have the same reservations about affirmations and such things, and for the same reasons. Affirmations and positive intentions are all very well, and using one’s conscious will to shape behavior is certainly important in any growth process, but in comparison to the power of the subconscious patterns, which most people are only barely aware of, trying to change behavior with merely conscious “intention” is like trying to take out a tank with a pea shooter. In effect, the conscious mind ends up at war with the unconscious imperatives of the survival instinct, and against a drive that strong, the conscious mind is rarely going to stay in the driver’s seat. Discussions of the “law of attraction” sound really good, but almost always to fail to take into account the fact that the really strong attractors are in the subconscious, sequestered from the view of the conscious mind, and under normal circumstances are not responsive merely to talk, which is one reason affirmations disappoint so many people.
I would submit that it is precisely this area that traditional techniques like Yoga, Qi Gong, Vipassana and a host of others were created to address. The writer Steven Levine alludes to this in one of his essays when he says “We only call it the subconscious because we are so terribly subattentive.” Whether it’s Buddhism, Vedanta, Taoism, Sufism or mystical Christianity, all of the contemplative traditions have stressed the foundational necessity of deeply encountering this usually hidden part of the system in order to get free to move higher. And that’s the basic reason that I fall into the camp with Trinh and Jamie and others who see this whole process much more as something to continually let go of and surrender to rather than to chase or achieve, which I’m afraid makes me kind of dull for the purposes of this discussion.
Well, I'm also honored to have been listed in the Greatest Hits of our last topic. Thank you, Thomas.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, since you're a Napoleon Hill devotee, do you know of W. Clement Stone? He co-authored a book with Hill and is actually the man many literary sources count as the author of that most famous quote normally attributed to Hill. He's also written several other books that you might enjoy.
Anyway... on the subject of transcending one's religion, for which I received my ThomasGall Kudos, I think the latest newcomer, Jamie (which, by the way, allows me to move up a notch or two on the seniority list here), asks a question that's oddly related.
Because too often I feel we pursue religion for the sake of religion, forgetting that a religion's actual raison d'être is to provide a path that guides its supplicants to reunite with the divine, as opposed to being both the means and the end for its followers.
I'll therefore pose a more direct question than Jamie. Is manifesting what we want, just for the sake of manifesting, appropriate? Or should it be a more thoughtful, purposeful practice?
I truly do believe that we are creating our reality constantly, but the reality we are creating in our world seems to be heavy on manifesting and light on mindfulness.
Thomas, you spoke very passionately about the condition of our world and how desperately we need to transform it (I'm paraphrasing, so please excuse my inexactitude). I find myself in this odd place (which we Canadians are want to do) of feeling hopeful about transformation and intrigued by my own desire for spiritual manifestation, while simultaneously being suspicious of those who advertise these principles for materialistic purposes. One could view that as socialistic, idealistic, or just plain schtik, but it’s where I am at the moment.
So all right, I'm a bit neurotic, I realize, but I suppose what I'm ultimately saying is this. Yes, Jamie, I do relate to your concern.
Kindly,
Sarah
P.S. Oh thank god, BKO, for your post. I just read it as I was preparing to finally post mine. I’ve been fretting over this all night and am so relieved to have someone put such eloquent words around the feelings that I struggled to explain.
I definitely relate to the concerns that have been expressed and feel that the area of the unconscious and how it inhibits us from being fully present to our own wholeness is vital to our discussion.
ReplyDeleteI also, however, want to go back to something several of you have alluded to, but we haven't really dealt with fully either.
We are always manifesting. And while the focus on materialism and the commercial application of this process has no doubt contributed to the circumstances we now find ourselves in globally, we can't ignore the fact that if we continue to simply follow the current unconscious process of manifesting that most of us engage in (whether we no it or not), we're destined to continue down this increasingly bumpy road.
Therefore, I strongly believe we could, as a species, truly benefit from creating a fully holistic model of the manifestation process (and take into account the necessary transformation required to responsibly use such a power).
That's no small order I realize. But I'd love to see us take a crack at it anyway.
Christopher
Anna, BKO:
ReplyDeleteAddiction, the subconscious mind, & the stupid redundant biological monkey robot brain!
I have seen the power of this subconscious mind and its desire to keep things the same, safe as you put it, Anna. It’s the monkey brain that has evolved as Anna said to be safe and as animals do, stay the same for the purpose of survival of the species. It’s not wise to go transforming ones self all the time in an unpredictable world, where a saber tooth tigers or dinosaur might eat you up. Plus the resource availability back in those cave times was a bit limited, if you were lucky enough to survive the hunt. The advent of farming didn’t leave much in terms of making it much safer either. But then comes this strange modern age, where we still have this evolutionary programming to hoard resources, compete for limited opportunities, and kill if needed. And we have too much at our fingertips; the problem of food, drug, sex and other addictions becomes a nightmare in our lives.
I see addiction & depression has this beautiful motivator that works so well for a short life span, it even has a place in cave times. The men that didn’t have low levels of dopamine might not have had as much motivation to hunt and reproduce in cave times. This created an evolutionary advantage for not being happy all the time. (I loved the part in the movie the Matrix where they said, we created a perfect world for humans, but they were not happy). So in a modern time, low dopamine, means that we seek out ways to get pleasure. Low levels of serotonin mean we seek out ways to not be depressed, yet I bet if your being hunted by a lion, you don’t have time to worry about your next Prozac dose or getting a drag off that smoke! Recent studies suggest a half hour of exercise a week is as good as taking Prozac, only a half hour!!!
But programming the subconscious mind is being worked on by marketing every day, and it’s happening out there. They have spent trillion on this concept to get you to buy unconsciously, and people do; however, with the advent of TIVO their easy TV approach is slowly not available. I love to fast forward through commercials, and I don’t let my kids watch regular TV because I know the intention is to make them sad with shows and reinforce long term memory with their product. It makes for a depressed child that isn’t happy till you buy them that toy or take them to McDonalds because they deserve a break today just for showing up on the F Planet.
But it’s very true that the brain has programming already in place. You declare that you want to be smoke free or be in shape, or make a difference by feeding hungry people in the third world, or whatever. You set out to do this, and your ego/subconscious or whatever mind says, you don’t really want to do this. Some people have suggested that its because of how you declare the words, that the subconscious mind doesn’t understand complex double negative words or time, the affirmation must be in the present tense. But I don’t think it’s that complicated, unless we are talking about really strong chemical imbalances.
Lets face it, if you transform something in your life that was easy to transform, its no big deal. If you happen to do it in a seminar or with the help of a counselor, you still changed/transformed that negative behavior for good. If you didn’t, you start telling yourself that this didn’t work and your ego not wanting to not look bad, to avoid pain and seek approval or pleasure, justifies its failure. The failure says the ego is because the method doesn’t work!! But it worked for the other things you created as a possibility in your life.
But when it comes to real chemical problems of addiction, mental illness, we are getting much better at finding specific neuron transmitters and solving the problem at the source, the brain network is still all inter connected and we find crossover problems. One of the biggest is the effect of the libido with some of these drugs, which really kills your desire not to take the drug regardless of its benefit.
We are inventing a vaccine for heroin addiction and more will come with this new approach to deal with addiction.
I was unable to transform my being smoke free for many years even with seminars/counselors/books, although I did create a million other possibilities in my life with these transformation processes. So I took a new drug Chantix, which finally solved my problem to get past the negative subconscious minds problem, which in fact, was just that I didn’t want to quit. Chantix takes someone who doesn’t want to really quit, (or the subconscious mind convinced me that I wanted to stay the same), and then it blocks the nicotine from causing a dopamine release to occur. I smoked a pack a day for a week while I was taking Chantix, by the 8 days I got nothing; I couldn’t get the dopamine release. Then after my quit date, I stopped for three days, then I cheated, but still nothing, I couldn’t get the dopamine release. I am now smoke free for three months, I could easily fail and start smoking, it would only take one smoke to be back with a monkey on my back, but I know better now, if I fail, I have a solution, but I don’t think I will fail this time.
Tom, you mention the subconscious mind, & the stupid redundant biological monkey robot brain. I'm assuming you are making the same linkage as our own studies indicate -- at that is that the two are one and the same (and yet that is only one level of the subconscious mind).
ReplyDeleteI believe one of the challenges we face when we address a topic such as the one in which we're engaged, is that there is a tendency for each person to promote their own discipline or experience as being the "only" way or the "best" way. We all tend to do that and I'm certainly no exception.
Your comments reminded me that our ultimate goal, as you have described, is to utilize the approach that is best suited to produce the best results with each particular person. For some, as you have indicated, it may be a seminar; for others, as in your own specific addiction to nicotine, it was a pharmaceutical solution. For others there are methodologies that utilize trigger points in the body; and yet others have turned to more advanced versions of such technologies as hypnosis and NLP or Quantum Thinking to provide solutions or to open new doorways. Some still choose native rituals or shamanistic journeys.
Brain science and our current understanding of the chemistry of the brain and how it relates to our states of consciousness, in spite of all the self-congratulatory words we provide ourselves with in the world of science, still gives us a very incomplete model. We do, however, have a glimpse of how such chemical interactions create states of consciousness. Isolating these processes and forcing upon them a reductionistic explanation(i.e. it is all about chemistry), creates its own special case of myopia that allows us to hide from ourselves a deeper, broader understanding of what may be also occurring.
What we are beginning to pay more attention to, however, in recent years, is the distinction between states of consciousness (such as a peak experiences) and a stage of consciousness (the consistent evolutionary stage to which one has arrived through whatever the means).
Said differently -- any of us may have a peak experience and the insights it brings. But to maintain that perspective and the accessible wisdom that accompanies it, as a way of being, constitutes a stage of consciousness. This is a distinction that I believe would also assist us with our own conversation here. Because while a shift upward toward the latter (the stage of consciousness) signifies genuine transformation, we are often fooled into believing that a transcendental experience alone (which occurs during elevated states of consciousness) constitutes transformation. Certainly the fallout from such experiences may leave bread crumbs that lead us to a more advanced stage, but too often our over-emphasis on the experience itself leads people to believe they have arrived at a destination of which they have only grabbed a glimpse.
What personally excites me though, is the realization that there are so many pathways to advanced stages of consciousness (those more permanent ways of being). And while we can activate certain areas of the brain and trigger the less permanent states of consciousness (via chemicals and other forms of external stimulation), we still have not been able to adequately explain or begin to replicate the more permanent stage of consciousness. And, while state elicitation is certainly fascinating to study, experience, and model, our real work is largely untouched -- that being the elicitation of truly evolved stages of consciousness (those that transcend intellectual pretense and the mere ability to parrot words of wisdom – and extend to the authentic incorporation of such knowledge into one’s day-to-day life).
Thus the mystery remains open and it may be that if we have the necessary level of humility within the scientific community of the West, we will look more deeply into other paradigms, traditions, and cultures to find answers that we do not immediately discount or put into a box of the "explained."
A rich curiosity must drive us to find answers that provide more holistically satisfying explanations. Otherwise, we will continue to prove to ourselves that our paradigms are indeed correct and miss the far great opportunity that awaits us, if we allow ourselves to open up to the unfathomable and eternal realm of, "I don't know." This is where I long for our conversation to truly elevate.
Kindly,
Anna
Anna:
ReplyDeleteWow!
Your answer and direction you want this conversation to go in are brilliant.
I have a new vocabulary for Stage and State of consciousness.
I am sorry for only writing from my own experience, it’s the only way I knew how to get my fingers around this topic.
In my own experience, I have known states of consciousness, reached many profound spiritual and intellectual insights only to forget them later and question their existence.
I want to continue this conversation, because it’s something that I have wanted to understand or get at the stage level.
Can you recommend some resources that have led you to this understanding, so I might catch up and explore the, “I don’t know I don’t know,” of this great question!
Your friend in understanding the great mystery.
Thomas Gallagher
Anna,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, I found your post fascinating. I agree that the State/Stage distinction is absolutely foundational for understanding this territory. And I don't think it's possible to stress enough how important your idea of fitting the approach to the individual is. The trick, as you point out, is to have a toolbox that's inclusive enough so that becomes a possibility, given the complexity of actual human difficulties. And I think it's also important to note that Western science is far from the only place that narrowness impedes progress. Narrowness of consciousness impedes progress ANYWHERE it occurs, I think. Clients have a maddening habit of suffering from conditions and engaging in behaviors not listed in our textbooks, and we need every good tool we can find to help them in their actual lives with their actual problems.
Although I am definitely rooted in Chinese Medicine, a significant part of my practice is referred to me by therapists, psychiatrists and docs who are asking all the same questions we are asking here and I am blessed with wonderful collaborative experiences because of iti, and it makes a huge difference in the outcomes in complex difficult cases. The shorthand of that is that I end up being one of the people who gets the people for whom the more standard approaches haven't worked and have to use anything I can find to try and help them. So, I'm in the "I don't know" from moment one most of the time. It took me a few years to finally get enough seasoning to be able to stand it there, but now, I'm actually at the point where I get suspicious of anyone who's too bound to any one viewpoint or approach, especially when the know-it-all turns out to be me!
Tom, I would like to lay claim to the recognition and designation of the terms states and stages of consciousness, but I would be laughably dishonest, if I were to do so (too many people in this group know better). Quite honestly, my own knowledge of this topic comes more from research in a clinical setting and less from the hands-on curative experience that others in our community here may have.
ReplyDeleteBy way of a little history on the designations themselves, much of what is now called "Integral Psychology" -- which utilizes and formally focuses upon the distinctions of states and stages as a basis for its work -- was oriinally developed by way of adapting the teachings of a yogi by name of Sri Aurobindo. All of the subsequent early progress on this approach was fostered by his students (most of whom were from India).
One of my dear friends attended the college that was later established in the United States to further and expand upon that work (California Institute of Integral Studies). As the work has gained more popularity over the last two decades, more people have evolved their own versions of the approach (including a philosopher named Ken Wilber and his associates who have now developed their own branch of the study).
Accessing the works of the original founder of the work, while very easy to accomplish, leaves one with a very challenging read due to the interweaving of Sri Aurobindo's Hindu philosophy which becomes rather complicated for the average reader.
Therefore, my ultimate suggestion would be to pick up a copy of Ken Wilber's book, "Integral Psychology." It's available online at amazon.com and in many book stores. I think it will provide you with a well-thought-out conceptualization of his branch of work in that regard.
Now to create a segue, BKO, it sounds as if you're in the literal midst of dealing with the very roots of our discussion on a daily basis.
Ultimately, or so it would seem, the flexibility you have been required to develop by virtue of the nature of your practice and your commitment to healing, is one which we in the research field unfortunately have the luxury of not adopting (and quite honestly, we have pressures pressed upon us which strongly encourage us to act otherwise).
Furthermore your comfortability with the land of "I don't know," especially in the face of the critical needs of your patients, is a rare ability that I wish could be transmitted broadly to health care practitioners and patients alike.
Perhaps this conversation can be a starting place. I'll invite some of the more courageous of my circle of associates who are not already in our midst to join. The commitment to anonymity here, has provided a zone of safety that I think might make them feel comfortable enough to at least read, if not comment. I know I did a fair amount of reading the posts here to test people's willingness to maintain those bounds of professional safety before I joined in.
It's a sad commentary on the state of affairs (or at least many of our perceptions thereof). But, I suppose, each step forward brings us one step closer to greater wisdom.
Good evening to all,
Anna
I would like to state the obvious to make sure I am following the conversation:
ReplyDeleteThe context of our conversation is intentions creating transformation.
The context of “state of consciousness” is like changing something in our life only to change back.
The context of “stage of consciousness” is transformation in the sense of permanent lasting change in our lives.
It seems or is true that individuals simply by faith are able to change or transform.
We are looking at this transformation concept from an intellectual point of view because the spiritual side might lack words to describe its method or process, except to say a person simply believes in possibility and miracles or results occur.
We might also say that the individual who has faith is empowered by the idea of “ignorance is bliss” or “self fulfilling prophecy”, but also might be fooling them selves by looking at the outcome through filtered perception.
We also might say that these individuals of faith might only be experiencing a state of consciousness and be missing the deeper possibility of a stage of consciousness.
States of consciousness are mistake for lasting experiences and are often forgotten because they were temporary.
So although the power of the “Law of Attraction” or “The Power of Now” are often mistaken for a transformation, most often it’s just a temporary change or it’s the individuals believing their own lie.
Last, a holistic approach to transformation must be included so that people use such a powerful to in a way to better the world, not create more destruction.
I look forward to picking up a copy of Intergral Psychology by Ken Wilber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber
Anna, Tom, BKO, thanks to all of you for continuing to advance this topic. I heartily support your desire to dig deeper in this territory.
ReplyDeleteOne note regarding Ken Wilber's take on Integral Psychology, I really appreciate your providing us with some history in that regard, Anna, because as you mentioned, the overarching concept regarding what we now have labeled states and stages of consciousness has been around for eons.
In more recent history, this concept was part of the fundamentals in an esoteric school that I was in enrolled in in the early 90's, but which was founded in the 70's. This concept has also been a part of many early yogic practices dating back several millennia and is inherent within the practice of Buddhism (though these earlier spiritual traditions labeled it differently).
I'm going to see if I can track down the teacher from my esoteric school, because I think she would have some very valuable comments in regard to how the actual evolution, from her standpoint at least, occurs.
I'll sit with all of this as well and let it marinate on the brain and see if I can add something to the how this process works as well.
And, as Anna said, good evening to all.
Christopher
Welcome to the Integral Encyclopedia Wiki!
ReplyDeleteThe Integral Encyclopedia Wiki is an open-source collaborative encyclopedia dedicated to discovering, inventing and exemplifying new ways to include and integrate a multiplicity of ideas, articles and discussions, from a wide range of integral perspectives.
http://integralwiki.net
Once a Jesuit, always a Jesuit, one of my teachers used to tell us. And since I came out of the closet, several topics back, and revealed to my group of friends here that I'm a god-minded scientist, I suppose it's safe to share that side of my nature with you.
ReplyDeleteThe evolution of consciousness and the differentiation between mystical experiences and the actual development or growth of one's soul (or spiritual nature) also lies at the very roots of Christianity, when understood in the context in which is was originally intended.
The passage uttered by Paul the Apostle "Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face-to-face"; the analogy of us being clay in the hands of the potter; the allusion to Christ being formed within us -- all of these metaphors point to the early Christian understanding of this evolution of consciousness which took place gradually over time as the Spirit worked within us ("perfecting us" -- or more properly rendered, returning us to a state of unity and perfection -- which was not possible without our first forgetting our perfection and then consciously re-obtaining it).
The thread that runs through all of the spiritual traditions, with which I have come in contact, is that of a spiritual evolution. This evolution may be sparked, aided by, or -- in the case of one who becomes detoured -- hindered by the temporary elevated state of consciousness (which can dramatically increase the calorie intake of the ego -- to use a metaphor). It is for this reason that many spiritual teachers have cautioned their followers to be wary of visions and other momentary flashes of enlightenment.
We tend, due to our little "monkey mind" as Trinh calls it, to latch on to such experiences and make them out to be something that they are not (they are momentary and only become permanently available to us and etched within us over time -- or on the extremely rare occasions when a compression of time does take place in the presence of eternity or pure god energy. I'm drifting off into the works and ideas of various saints -- who were once heretics, but after they were dead and therefore safe, were proclaimed to be "saints" -- but I believe you can see where I'm heading here.)
In conclusion, this is why "quick" fixes of any kind raise suspicion within me as well. The process of evolutionary stages of consciousness or soul growth simply does not occur quickly. BKO speaks of being suspicious of anyone who gets too "fixed" in their ideology. I could not agree more. How God deals with each one of us, and therefore how our evolution takes place, is entirely individual and cannot be prescribed into a simple formula (though I recognize that certain practices, rituals, methods, and so forth greatly increase the odds of such growth occurring).
I could go on, as this discussion has definitely become richer, but I have to call it a night (we're way past evening now). I look forward to exploring these ideas further with you.
Silvio
P.S. Tom Gallagher, just prior to posting my comment here, I read your excellent summary of our discussion. Well done. I think you've summed it up beautifully.
And this may simply be my bias showing through, but do be cautious when you read Ken Wilber's book. He is very convincing and many people walk away believing he's the new mouthpiece of God. Well, he may possibly be one of them -- as we all are -- but there are many alternative views and refinements regarding his theories. It's not quite as final as he describes it (at least in my not so humble opinion).
I'm honored to have been invited to participate in your discussion on manifestation. I would like to begin by introducing myself as one who has been involved in the most intricate studies of energy in a multiplicity of forms. I began this journey as a very young woman and have approached the subject from a purely scientific standpoint and from that of a metaphysician.
ReplyDeleteI have found that we human beings, who are from what is laughably considered to be the "modern" era, have a great deal of difficulty understanding that consciousness permeates the entire universe and creation. Consciousness does not simply depend on or exist through personalities, or personifications of entities. It permeates everything that exists.
The human mind has been conditioned through various schools of "logic" (which I like to think of as schools of limited thinking) to believe that consciousness is exclusively a byproduct of personality, that it can exist only within the human form. In this way of thinking the brain is regarded as the exclusive manifestation of consciousness.
This is not so. Consciousness does not require a fixed form. Every particle of matter contains consciousness. But in inanimate matter consciousness has become slowed down or in a more dormant state (or a stasis, similar to a hibernation of sorts) in the same way that energy is held in stasis in inanimate objects.
Consciousness and energy are not the same, but they are both interdependent aspects of the manifestation of the underlying Life Force that is the fundamental essence by which the Universe exists.
As evolution progresses, from inanimate objects to simpler biological life forms, this stasis lessens, and consciousness and energy become increasingly vibrant and moving. As consciousness gains more and more awareness, energy has increasingly greater power to move, build, and give form.
The process of transformation to which you have been referring, is what occurs when the consciousness of a human being, in the instance you are referring to, gains sufficient awareness as to expand to a new level of evolution, which provides such a one a greater ability to access the universal intelligence that is inherent or embedded within their energetic consciousness.
At what we might consider to be a more "advanced" stage of consciousness, one realizes fully that one's own consciousness/energy is not separate from that of the rest of creation. This allows one to join in a co-creative process of altering the forms which energy takes and manifesting in ways that to a more limited mind, would seem like a miracle or something of a supernatural dimension. But it is not supernatural at all. It is simply based upon laws of nature not typically understood, seen, or experienced by those at a slower vibratory level.
Thus, as you have been describing here, a temporary shift in energetic frequency is typically not sustainable. It is only after one's consciousnesses has become elevated at a constant level that such changes become more permanent and are thus able to be regularly manifest in a person's day-to-day life both in terms of their ability to manifest, but even more importantly in terms of the level of love and healing they are able to bring to their daily interactions.
I trust that this information makes relative sense, based on your previous conversations?
As Christopher has mentioned, this is not new information, but has been handed down for many generations upon generations, by way of numerous esoteric traditions and through a myriad of teachers. There are a number of factors that contribute to such an evolution and those that detract from and or delay such an evolution from taking place.
There are some who believe that there are certain forces or groups who prefer that the vast majority of humans stay at a more limited stage of evolution since at these lesser stages we are more susceptible to manipulation and, in a very real way, become slaves to the system and thus to those who run the system.
That's an interesting idea, if you believe in such things. Of course to engage in such a discussion would be perpetrating conspiracies and that is clearly not something that one should do, is it?
Lucy you speak of your philosophy as if it were factual as opposed to theoretical. Or am I misinterpreting or adding to your tone?
ReplyDeleteAlso, isn't what you describe simply the same view as that of the early Vedic traditions (that continued on through various forms of Buddhism and other Eastern teachings)?
Just wondering,
Sarah
Welcome, Lucy. Cool.
ReplyDeleteSarah, can I introduce a concurrent question for you as Lucy examines your questions? I think it might be useful for all of us to examine how we're defining "factual" and "theoretical". I think your question is a very good one, and that it's a place, particularly given all the scientists we have in this group, where we can start examining some of the assumptions we make whenever we start looking at things outside the scientific mainstream. The trick in dealing with these kinds of things is figuring out how to keep our feet planted on firm earth while exploring deep space.
Before I begin my response, I would like to thank my granddaughter, Aimee, for assisting me with this new universe of blogging. I'd still be reading the instructions somewhere had she not intervened.
ReplyDeleteNow, with proper acknowledgements having been given, let us get down to the deeper questions of our conversation.
Sarah, dear, I echo BKO's questions. Is not everything theoretical? And what, after all, is factual?
Being fair though, let me admit that I did write my viewpoint as if it were reality, because it is simply the way I see life. But you are so right in calling attention to this short-sightedness and reminding me, as well, that my reality is not true, it is simply my reality. I could ask for leniency due to my age, but that would be disingenuous since I’ve not lost more than a few steps over the years in terms of my mind’s ability. One may attribute that good fortune to genetics or to a voracious reading appetite and an unending curiosity about life.
Oh, but an exciting question that is not meant to lead us off track. Have you become familiar with Vedic mathematics? It's being used now in a variety of engineering and chemical schools and workplaces because its systems provide a variety of shortcuts that allow accurate answers to be calculated much more quickly than traditional means.
Fascinating, as you have suggested, that so much of what we think we have discovered has been with us for so very long. I am finding blogging, for example, to be a wonderful mix of the art of letter writing and that of delivering a thesis. In spite of my initial reservations, I think I might find this enjoyable. I’ve always been able to do both reasonably well.
Before we begin our journey into the realm of “It’s all God and/or an infinite fractal of God’s thought; I think there for I am …God”
ReplyDeleteLets be clear about that which is truth and factual, but then again, lets presume that collective consciousness is factual and/or God for that matter.
Aristotle stated: “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”
Lastly keep in mind, when God made man, she was only kidding…
Lucy,
I am excited to hear your perspective on transformation; however, I wonder how we will ever keep our feet on the ground as I felt Anna was attempting to direct us.
That said, I love to fly, but mostly in my dreams.
I have begun to read Integral Psychology, thank you Anna.
And, I got to have lunch with Chris yesterday, quite an interesting and fun person to be around!
Best,
Tom Gallagher
Glad you're enjoying the book, Thomas. It's a very good primer that provides a good glimpse from Wilber's perspective.
ReplyDeleteI'm really enjoying taking a pause for a moment, though, and questioning what is factual and what is theoretical. I believe BKO has raised a very interesting question here that I should be asking myself far more frequently. And our newcomer, Lucy, has taken it a step further with her response, "Is not everything theoretical?" That's always a bit baffling to our linear minds, but it's true and we too often forget this as we struggle to create our working model of the cosmos and our more proximate universe.
So Thomas, you're desire to presume that collective consciousness is factual will certainly give us a somewhat grounded starting place (which is most essential when dealing with the infinite which has no beginning). I do believe that it's worthwhile for us to also acknowledge, however, that whatever we call IT, as our lovely poet Rizzin has penned, IT is not, and that putting names on the things of infinity merely serves as a inadequate place marker that gives us an anchor for our discussion.
Sorry if these qualifications are laborsome to anyone. It's the scientist in me needing to articulate the boundary conditions of our discussion, while calling attention to their superficial reality.
Keeping all of the foregoing in my mind, I next wander into the territory of energetic frequency shifts and constant frequency shifts as described by Lucy. Dot P. or KBF, should you still be traveling in our regions, do either of you have any experience with this notion. I seem to remember one of you writing on this previously? Is there a way to tie that back to our conversation on transformation and, more interesting still, on this theory of manifestation that we're dabbling in?
Hopefully,
Anna
On a side note, I do use a “Factual Test” in life, and think it’s the most important one of all. In fact, if I would live my life more grounded in the factual, I would be better off.
ReplyDeleteIf I see something right in front of my face and I can touch “it” in the present tense, then to me it’s factual, theoretically speaking of course.
However, now that I am experiencing “it” and perceiving “it”, its all theory, thus I am confounded again. Lovely Irony…
Still, to touch, feel and see are a good bet on the truth or what’s real.
I wonder if we can apply that to this conversation of “it”. (Illusion & Transformation)
I am or I have touched, felt and seen transformation…
Lost and Found,
Tommy G
As you're all pointing out, it's a delicate balance, isn't it? But I think I see the points being made here amongst each of you.
ReplyDeleteOne, we need to recognize that what we call "fact" is a temporary designation that we give to things that have met a set of defined parameters (felt, seen, touched, heard, tasted would be an example of group of parameters -- though those are relative measures as well).
Two, we tend to make "real" the models we that create to get our minds around difficult or ethereal concepts (for example there are no such things as "atoms" it's simply a name we've given to identify a model we created in an attempt to describe how things operate at the energetic level).
Three, if we don't use some of these identifiers (while recognizing that the map is not the territory), we could get stuck out in such an undefined territory that we don't really ground our discussion in a way that makes it useful for us.
So, as we move forward in this discussion, maybe we can establish that we all recognize those factors and now step forward, being a little more aware, and move beyond our own limits (whatever they might be) and explore this topic together more deeply than we would otherwise do.
Sound like a plan?
Christopher
Oh now, I've always like having a plan. And so I hope this is an appropriate time within that plan for me to interject a few more basic ideas into this conversation. If you will all put up with my thinking out loud, it helps me get my own mind organized and allows me to take the temperature of the room, as well.
ReplyDeleteAs I think we have all made quite clear now, each of our attempts to describe the workings of eternity falls drastically short. I’ll make my comments with those limitations keenly in mind.
It has been my experience that each aspect of consciousness has, according to its nature, its own characteristics, its own type and frequency rate of vibratory movement, its own emanation, its own color and scent, its own tone, and many other unique sense impressions which are unknown in the human state.
The senses that exist in spiritual reality far exceed the spectrum of senses perceived by human beings. There are infinitely more colors, tones, scents, etc. The human being is a conglomeration of aspects of consciousness. Some are already purified (or have re-discovered their wholeness as in our three dimensional reality); others have always remained whole or pure and are thus an integral part of individuality, no longer separate and therefore no longer disharmonious with the deeper truth of our being-ness.
These pure aspects form an integrated whole. Other aspects are “negative” and “destructive” (i.e. they seem to confirm our fragmentation and our separation from Source), and are thus experienced as separate. They may be likened to appendages.
It is the opportunity and game, we could say, of each human being in each incarnation to synthesize, unify, and assimilate these various aspects of separated consciousness (these are what we could refer to as transformational steps along the path to re-claiming wholeness). If you truly try to comprehend what I say here, you may find that this is a novel way of explaining human existence.
Of course, this task of integration does not exist only on the level of human consciousness. It continues in more highly developed states of consciousness as well, only in those states the struggle is not so severe or painful because there is no judgment regarding the process -- instead it is seen as a natural evolution. The increased awareness in the higher states immeasurably facilitates the synthesizing process. The human predicament is the result of the individual's lack of understanding of what is going on, the blindness of his struggle to unify himself, and his deliberate attempts to perpetuate this blindness.
One’s ability to manifest in this three dimensional plane is in direct correlation to one’s integration process. The more integrated one becomes, the more attuned one becomes to all of the various frequencies of creation for these are seen without judgment in unity (and yet still diverse -- it is the diversity, in truth, that allows for the unity to exist).
I think that is sufficient for now. I'd welcome your perspective on my reality lens. I’m also truly hoping to hear how you experience and define your reality as well. I’m an eager curious learner and we appear to have a gathering of very creative minds here.
What have you manifested today?
I'm manifesting a perfectly frustrating day and I don't know that it has anything to do with my "atunement" or my "integration". I think some days are just difficult and others are delightful. Some people are easier for me to deal with and others challenging.
ReplyDeleteI guess the truth is I'm not sure I believe in this whole "manifest your reality" line. Is what your saying here any different than the decades of New Age mumbo jumbo we've already had to endure?
Don't get me wrong. Everyone has the freedom to frame their reality any way they choose to. It simply appears to me that "manfestation" is another technique to get people to buy into the greed game. How many huge homes, fancy cars, and resort vacations and perfect careers do we need?
Wouldn't it be more productive to simply live our lives with kindness and respect and do what it takes to limit our damage to each other and the earth?
Feeling unenlightened,
Sarah
Lucy,
ReplyDeleteThank you.
What I am manifesting now is letting go of my past notions of transformation, and really have a listen to what is possible in this learning environment.
Please continue, I am all hears and very excited to transform what ever is possible.
On being a child with an open heart,
Moki
Sarah, sorry you're day's been frustrating. And yes, I think there definitely times that we don't line up easily with some of people that we have to interact with.
ReplyDeleteThe way I look at those kinds of situations is, the two choices I always seem to have is: what I make those moments mean; and how I choose to respond (or not respond). I guess that's how I see a real pragmatic link in terms of how I shape my reality.
That doesn't mean that the person suddenly becomes my best buddy, but it might mean that I don't take what they do as personally (and that maybe I deal with some of the hurts I have that they seem to rub raw).
For me, shaping my day-to-day or manifesting my reality are all part of a continuum of choices we make. My goal is to make as many choices consciously as possible (because I know that in react mode, I'm making a lot of unconscious choices that impact me and others).
In that process, I also get to see all of those places that Lucy talked about where I don't feel whole or where I feel fragmented. Those take time, a lot of self-directed kindness, and the willingness to give myself permission to be perfectly imperfect along the way.
The less fragmented I feel the more I seem to be able to make really grounded choices based on a much more clear sense of where I feel naturally drawn to go. I am then able to pursue my purpose and not be so distracted by all of the flap going on around me that might just be "channel noise." Or I might become clear that some of that noise is signaling a situation that truly needs my attention and requires me to be at my clear-headed, open-hearted best.
Hope that makes some sense.
Christopher
Is it just me? Or did we all just zoom right by a really amazing confluence of ideas... I mean there were so may questions flying about... did you miss it?
ReplyDeleteBKO... Anna... Sarah... and Lucy all talked about theoretical vs. factual... then Sarah complains about her day... and Christopher says... if you cut right to the straight edge of what he was getting to... that we're constantly making shit up about what things mean... we're theorizing constantly. You know?
I mean, we think we're being all factual and everything... seriously... but hell no... we're creating our own big-assed theory of what just happened.
Now I get what Anna was saying... about needing to ask herself the question more... "Am I theorizing... or is this a fact?" And what the hell is a fact?
Man this conversation always trips me out... and now I just start laughing. I mean... it used to freak me out... and poor Christopher... especially when he used to come here... I'd like be all twisted into a mental pretzel... and he'd just kind of smoothly help me untie myself.
Oh... I'm so totally digging this. Here's a challenge to my own gang... code word: Is that a theory or is it a fact? In other words... are you just making shit up... or what?
Love you all like the crazy girl I am,
JJ
Christopher, thank you. Yes it does make sense. I can get a bit cyncial at times. But like I wrote earlier, I do want to believe that we create our reality. At times it's been difficult to see how.
ReplyDeleteWhat you've said is very practical though. I'm sure there's a more mystical aspect to it as well. But for now, I think applying what you've shared will be a valuable exercise for me (and transformational, no doubt).
I wish we could just import you in to live in our office. I think we could use your perspective a lot around here. And yes, JJ, I think I'll be asking myself that same coded question as well. Maybe I can even find a co-conspirator to join me. I like it. "Is that theoretical or factual?"
Kindly,
Sarah
P.S. Please excuse me, Lucy. I didn't provide you with a very warm welcome. It's not at all personal and when I take a moment to get over myself, you seem very wise and kind.
Isn’t it ironic that the human species is so hell bent on operating in dichotomies and certainties…. I suppose that might be part of what you described so aptly, Lucy, when you were talking about the human predicament earlier?
ReplyDeleteI do not know who you are, but thank you for sharing your world view. I am truthfully very curious about you. Your messages thus far have been thought provoking … I would love to hear more about what you called “frequencies of creation.”
A.
P.S.
“One” would like to perpetuate conspiracies…..!
Also, Trinh, I hope your return to your native land has been a blessing in your life. I miss you.
Sarah, I'd like to add one thing to what Chris said. The idea of "creating your own reality" is one of the most misused and misunderstood terms in all of modern public discourse. If I'm reading Lucy right (and Lucy, please tell me if I'm not) the ability to consciously manipulate the physical and energetic world that she’s referring to is something that comes only after a GREAT deal of work and at a level of development that most of us humans have to spend years working for to even conceive of, let alone routinely achieve. I might refer you back to one of my last posts on this string, as well as to Anna's and Dot P.'s statements recently because I think they've been working with some of these ideas as well and might provide additional context for understanding what Lucy is saying.
ReplyDeleteIt's a very modern American thing (and again, I got that this is what you were talking about, Lucy) that the whole New Age take on "creatjng your own reality" often generates the impression that the process is as simple as repeating affirmations regularly, taking some seminars, or simply thinking positively. As you point out, it isn't that simple. That's the root of my contention that the traditional contemplative disciplines were created to deal with just this issue. I'm not implying that some ancient mystical practice is the only way to do it, just that the traditional contemplative practices were specifically created as an answer to the very problem you and Lucy are dialoguing about. Hell, a lot of physicists have broken into some pretty intense places using the modern contemplative discipline of mathematics, and so I don't draw lines about which path does it. Many paths and techniques lead there, including playing music, making art, and even looking at the sky and walking in the woods, but what they will all have in common is that, under normal circumstances, the development they offer takes regular, disciplined practice over an extended period of time. Many of the "modern" versions that exist in the popular marketplace, in my opinion, have been dumbed down, sanitized, Power Pointed and slickly packaged so they can be sold as a way for people to get the big house, the big job, the right lover, etc. In other words, the traditional process of spiritual development, like everything else in this society, has become commodified and made to sound as if it’s easy. Lucy's description of the purpose of human life being "to synthesize, unify, and assimilate the various aspects of separated consciousness" is easily ridiculed if, as I think you might have done today, you only look at new age McSpirituality for examples of what she’s referring to. The venerable ancient traditions of the world all contain very deep, extremely sophisticated, and very demanding pathways for getting to the places that Lucy describes, and I would suggest that those are where there is a much more productive discussion to be had.
Lucy, sorry if I put words in your mouth, but I have greatly enjoyed your contributions, and I just wanted to put in my two cents worth.
Aimee said to me tonight, "Grandma, people are talking about you on the blog." I told her, "Goodness, dear, people have been talking about your Grandma for years. They're probably just agreeing with the others that your Grams is a crackpot." But she assured me it was "good stuff."
ReplyDeleteOh my goodness, you've all said things so beautifully that I'm not sure what I'd add. But I do want to acknowledge Sarah for having the gumption to speak up and question and challenge what does not ring true for her. The honoring of our own inner voice is an essential part of healing our fragmentation and you’ve all done so well to create a cozy corner of the world that allows for just that.
Now to provide what may be a sense of relief to you all, no, I am not talking about anything New Age. My, that was quite an era, wasn't it? Quite honestly, I was referring to knowledge and practices that are very, very old.
And I must say that BKO said what I was trying to say much better than I. I share his concern and that of others here who have expressed their apprehension about what BKO called McSpirituality. Now dear, that did make me laugh right out loud. I'll borrow that one from you if you don't mind.
But using the powers of manifestation to satisfy the ego can be a very dangerous practice. Many are the tales throughout history of the sorcerer’s apprentice who got themselves into dire straights by dabbling in “magic” before their wisdom had the chance to catch up with the more acquisitive side of their minds.
But to provide the short answer to Anonymous, and I have to say I love the mysterious nature of your choice of names, the frequencies of creation refers to the fact that all matter consists, as I'm sure you're aware, of energy that has come together to form different configurations which we experience as "matter."
It's interesting that in the early sciences of the Vedic and other such traditions, the description of what we have now labeled "atoms" were never described as stationary models that you could put in a classroom. Nor were they viewed as inert, which was initially the view of Western science. Rather these energetic rays, waves, wavicles, and even subtle particles (that we now refer to as quarks, and so forth) all consisted of subtle primordial matter of the three gunas. “Atoms” were thus seen as different vibratory patterns of living energy or, as they sometimes called them, "energy balls".
Instead of counting how many electrons and protons these energetic configurations possessed, one instead recognized them by their frequency signature. Even finer aspects of consciousness or intelligent energy were also described as existing through the immensity of outer space and within our inner space or what we call our mind.
Because, as humans, we have become aware of ourselves in a singular sense, we have appropriated that intelligent energy and while harnessing it in a manner that enables us to function in remarkable ways, we have also limited it by restricting this intelligence or seeing it as “our” mind -- as something proprietary.
An essential segment of the ancient traditions that BKO speaks of were initiated to help free the mind from the prison of the self and thus enable it rejoin with the Universal Mind. This naturally provides one who has accomplished such a feat a far greater resource from which to gain understanding and a much clearer lens through which to view life.
While it is true that manipulating matter with our minds requires what some have described as lifetimes of practice, we can begin to harmonize with our own life and environment as we better understand our own natural vibration and begin to listen with our bodies and our spiritual selves to whether we are in surroundings that are in sympathetic vibration with our own resonant energetic frequency. Or are we in a situation that is so disharmonious that it may cause jagged fragmentations in our energetic field (which includes, of course, our physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual bodies as well).
My goodness, look at me rattling on like this. These are things I'm sure most of you are far more familiar with than I am. But I do appreciate being able to have such a conversation here in the comfort of my own den. Do forgive my tendency to carry on. I seem to have forgotten where the switch is that turns this silly mind off.
A delightful good night to you all,
Lucy
This conversation reminds me so much of conversations I used to have with my father, when I had finally returned and was willing to listen to him with an open heart. It's curious to me because his traditions are a half a world away from India and yet he and his lineage of healers saw these very same things.
ReplyDeleteWhat was always interesting to me is that he had gained this immense amount of understanding without an electron microscope or particle accelerator, without the Fermi lab, and without any form of traditional education at all. He had come to these very detailed understandings of how the universe functions by returning to the mind of God, as he would describe it.
If he was seeing into a biological form of life, then he was working in harmony with the Great Mother. If he was looking into the depths of space, he was falling into heart of the Father.
But he said, almost precisely as you have said here, that in order to do these things he had to relinquish his mind, in order for it to be able return to its native land -- to the place of its birth. I asked him if such journeys were at all frightening. Oh no, he told me. Somehow it always finds its way back.
Me, I was always wondering what would happen if it didn't? Or if someone else's mind found its way to you first?
But the reason he was able to be such a wonderful healer and to use the plants and earth and water as healing tools was because he said that he had joined with them and that at the level of light they all spoke the same language. He also told to me that he joined with the energy of the people who came to be healed as well. You must go beyond their fear, he told me. Straight to their heart, because the heart never forgets that each creation is merely a finger of God. From there, he would tell me, you can help the body remember its perfection.
Your sharing your information is healing for me, Lucy. I am very appreciative.
With sincere gratitude,
Ellio
Ellio, my good friend, Trinh has been most concerned about you. You have seemed very much filled with anger in these last weeks. I know many things have taken place that have challenged our minds and hearts. But I am very happy to hear the warm soul of my true friend speaking to us again. Returning to the memory of your father has let you find your way back to your heart.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous is kind for asking about this old man. Things are peaceful for Trinh. I am traveling my country with my son and am seeing my many family here. JJ, she is a good busy body and tells Trinh of all of your lives and conversations. I am wishing you all much peace and happiness. Sometime we speak again soon.
Thank you for your compassion,
Trinh
It’s been a few days since I read the blog, and I must say a lot of stimulating and amazing discussions have occurred. The question over fact or theory is a very good question. That question becomes challenging when we discuss the nature of the universe and how the topic of consciences and manifestation may exist in the framework of nature. I am going to diverge a second and then return to some exciting research being conducted on Conscious acts of Creation: The Emergence of a new physics.
ReplyDeleteFirst I propose a thought regarding Fact verses Theory; if you observe an outcome over and over but do not understand what you are observing, does it therefore exist as a fact or does it go into the realm of theory to be rigorously examined or do you just completely dismiss it because it is not in your paradigm of reality?
“Remember when the Earth was perceived as flat”…it perplexes me that the world accepted that paradigm when there were such strong and visible evidence to support round; the sun and moon.
I realize I ought not to poke fun at our predecessors but remain humble least our prodigy of the 22nd century laugh at us discussing the validity of humans potential to manifest.
Sorry I diverged for a second, back to fact verses theory. You are sitting under an apple tree, like Newton, on a very sunny day and then an apple falls to the earth. You sit awhile longer and notice more apples fall and your face gets burnt as well.
So you get where I am going with this… in the 1800’s you did not see gravity and you could not see UV, yet you observed the results of these energies. It would be incorrect to say and claim with absolute authority because you could not see or measure these energies therefore they do not exist, they are not factual.
Well now we are in the 21st century and Science has measured UV and has measured the effects of gravity so now we have proof, but having proof did not change the existence of gravity or a slice in the electromagnetic field we call “UV”; these energies have always existed.
So Science can only honestly and truthfully say we are ignorant to what it is that causes such results, until we build instruments to measure these energies it is incorrect to say they do not exist.
I hope to inspire our discussion and continue our investigation on human consciousness interacting with the material world with some research conducted by Dr. William Tiller, Professor Emeritus of Stanford.
Its midnight so I am going to paste excerpts from a web site on Tiller’s work instead of paraphrasing it; then if you like you can go to the web sight to finish reading the research. Its paradigm shifting research just what we are delving into.
“Proving scientifically that Mind Affects Matter:”
“Dr. Tiller's experiments to demonstrate the effect of mind over matter began by imprinting electrical devices with a specific intention. The imprinting was done by four experienced meditators; people who Tiller says were "highly inner-self-managed people."
Then this device — imprinted with the intent — was wrapped in aluminum and sent by overnight shipping to a laboratory 2000 miles away, where it was placed beside the "target experiment" and turned on.
So, for example, the electrical device might be imprinted with the idea of raising or lowering the pH of water. And if the device was turned on in the vicinity of a jar of water, the expectation was that the pH of the water would be raised or lowered, depending upon the original intent.
In the case of that particular experiment, they were looking for at least a full pH unit of difference, something large enough that the results could not be attributed to faulty measurement (it's possible to measure 1/100th or even 1/1000th of a degree of change in pH, so one full unit is a lot).
So the first result was that they were in fact able to achieve an unambiguous change in the water's pH state simply through its being in the vicinity of an electrical device that had been imprinted with that intent. And they were able to raise pH (or lower it, depending upon the intent) in this way by as much as 1-1/2 full units, a very large amount.
The Effect of Repeated Experiments
It was when the same experiment was repeated over and over, however, that the really significant effects began to show. For Tiller has found and proved that when intent is repeated in the same space, eventually it becomes permanent. And when that happens, the laws of physics in that space no longer operate as they did before! (For a homely but meaningful analogy, can you remember when it was "impossible" for man to run a four-minute mile?)
When they kept running the same experiment over and over again, Tiller says, the laboratory began to become "conditioned," so that the same result would happen more strongly or more quickly. And eventually, it would happen even after the device was no longer in the room.
"In one of the spaces that we have used," Tiller says, "the alteration in the space of the room has remained stable for well over a year, and it's still going strong." (Today, if you can't run a four-minute mile they won't let you on the track team.)
In physical terms, what does this mean? What has actually happened to the "space" of the laboratory room?”
To continue reading here’s the link and I was surprised by how accessible the information was to someone like me who is not a scientist by profession.
www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/mar2/tiller.htm
Regards,
MAK
Thanks to everyone for taking this topic deeper. I'm gaining a great deal from our discussion.
ReplyDeleteAnd, in regard to MAK's post about William Tiller, I wanted to also paste in the following statement to provide a balanced view [comments in brackets are mine]:
"Tiller claims to have discovered a new class of natural phenomena which he calls "subtle energies" [sounds familiar, doesn't it?], which manifest themselves in the practices of healers and other practitioners of the paranormal [this goes right to the heart of our most recent conversation points].
"Tiller, defines the term psychoenergetics as the study of these energies in relation to human consciousness. He sees a connection between nonphysical consciousness and the quantum phenomena. These findings are not accepted in the mainstream scientific community." [This should not be a huge surprise to any of us.]
By the way, I know we have several people in our group who reside in the Salt Lake City area who may be interested to know that Tiller is speaking there in April.
April 24-26, 2008 - Salt Lake City, Utah
Psychoenergetic Science: A Second Copernican-Scale Revolution
Salt Palace Convention Center
The Zyto Corporation's Bio-Interactive Technology Conference
For the rest of our group, you can visit http://www.tiller.org and click on "Speaking Schedule".
Please let the dialog continue.
Somehow I haven't quite been able to get the brief conversations I had with this group out of my head. So I return from time to time to see what mischief you've gotten yourselves into. This time I find that of all things you're now discussing pyschoenergetics, Vedic science, and the work of a modern heretic, William Tiller. My god, man, this group is rich.
ReplyDeleteI'll just comment briefly as my day is coming to a close here and I must be off to an unnecessarily elaborate event. When Tiller speaks of the vacuum and of its potentiality, in my opinion he speaks of what we also call "dark matter" and "dark energy" which when combined take up the vast amount of "space" in the known universe.
In my humble opinion, this dark matter and even more particularly, dark energy, if you look into Vedic science and even mystical Christianity, is pure creative potential. It is "dark", because it has not yet had the "light" of intentionality cast upon it. And intentionality, I would propose, is nothing more nor less than focused consciousness. And consciousness, as you've been elaborating upon here, is animated living energy (living energy that has been infused with the illumination of awakened intelligence). All matter, all energy (light and dark) contain this "intelligence." But in dark energy, it has not yet been ignited. One could say it is dormant or in a state of latency waiting for the switch to be turned on. The lovely Lucy’s question, “What have you manifest today?” has profound implications when examined more closely. I’ll let you all stew on that one as it relates to the ignition of dark energy and dark matter.
Quickly summarizing my little treatise, what we are looking at, my colleagues, is the interactions between animus and anima -- the masculine and feminine or yin and yang. This is a basic, grade school level understanding among our friends in the Eastern part of the world. We more linear-minded dodgers of the West are still struggling, however, to get out of our own way enough to see this. And who knows, it may be better that the West has not yet accepted such secrets. God only knows what we’d do with such knowledge.
Well, must run. Thank you for creating a place for heretics, hellions, and scallywags like me.
Nigel
Mak:
ReplyDeleteIn a similar study of intenstion water produced few results after many attempts.
The results on the movie "What the bleep do we know" were questionable. Dr. Masaru Emoto took thousands of pictures to make the one picture that looks like its been effected by intension.
Science often with statistic and the average deviation of the mean can say something is repeatable but is it really, or do we just have a lot of theoretical hope.
http://www.whatthebleep.com/crystals/
I was hoping water would have something; it is the vehicle that got our Genetic material to earth through the universe.
Maybe, the answer isn’t in the looking, only being with the question forever in silent reverence & awe.
Best,
Moki
At my dear friend Lucy's invitation, I join your conversation with gratitude. It is humbling to see so many wonderful souls and bright minds engaged in conversations that invite us to look more deeply into our souls.
ReplyDeleteWe will perhaps be forever searching for the definitive answer to life's indescribable secrets. Along the way we will all likely find those times when our passion leads us into the clutches of our ego for we are all vulnerable to such tendencies. And whether it be Mr. Tiller or Mr. Emoto, we will always have our breakthrough ideas questioned (and justifiably so for there is a great difference between the integrity of the truth and the wishful thinking that often accompanies our glimpses of a greater veracity -- and thus it is in our best interest to be so challenged).
I think Tom Gallagher makes a most valuable contribution to our understanding with his ponderous statement, "Maybe the answer isn't in the looking, only being with the question in silent reverence and awe."
It is in such a state as he describes that one opens the door to the Great Mystery, to that yet undefined realm of creative potential -- the Void.
And if we enter the Void, with the resonance of authentic purity and openness that only comes when we, without guile, stand wholly in the truth of who we are, then the creative link with our Higher Mind provides a clear channel through which we may infuse the realm of unlimited potential in perfect harmony with that which needs to be called forth -- and does so with an authentic, purity of confidence that transcends the false, vainglorious, and pretentious confidence of our smaller-minded egos.
There is much preparation before most of us will be able to access such states of ego-less-ness as our permanent way of being. But along the way, each time we do step into such states of grace, we bring ourselves and our world more into alignment with the perfection that already exists deep within us. This is what I envision and pray for each night and throughout each day -- that we may continue to move forward, even if at the pace of a snail, if that be in harmony with the Greater Plan. So please join me, if you will, claiming that such be our combined destiny -- this or something better -- for there is much power in our collective soul.
Welcome Maryanne... your prayer echoes mine... and that the Power of Love may be greater than the crazy tendency we have to undermine ourselves and others.
ReplyDeleteI've been spending a lot of time near the ocean... it seems there is something primeval and deeply cleansing about it... and I always come away with a peace and a clarity about our Journey together on this planet.
May we be at a place of Peace... Harmony... Balance... Love... Joy... and Wholeness so that we may manifest these qualities... as easily as we breathe.
Love is the Only Power,
Jonnie
There are fees and cost associated with transformation & reincarnation!
ReplyDeleteOn August 3, 2007, China's State Administration for Religious Affairs issued a decree that all the reincarnations of tulkus of Tibetan Buddhism must get government approval, otherwise they are "illegal or invalid".
The decree states, "It is an important move to institutionalize management on reincarnation of living Buddhas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_Application
I was disheartened when I read some of the responses to my last contribution. I realized that it would have been better to use Tillers words himself since the link I provided was an interview which I hoped would create curiosity, interest and an easy invitation to introduce a theory (a physic’s perspective) pertinent to further our discussion around conscious acts of creation “manifestation.” Instead what I experienced was a collapse of two unrelated experiments Emoto’s and Tiller’s. I understand this is a very complex and complicated topic to which I sense many in this blog would agree; “Maybe the answer isn't in the looking, only being with the question in silent reverence and awe;" In which I whole heartedly agree and I would say a curiosity which has one pursue the nature of our universe whether it is through meditation or rigorous scientific method ought not to be quickly dismissed and therefore attributed to the searcher’s sole motivation of ego. I find we tread on dangerous ground when we assume to know the motivations of another’s mind and heart.
ReplyDeleteThe link Chris provided directly to Tiller’s web site would have been a better choice since direct access to his research papers is available. The paper in which I refer to is entitled “Conscious acts of Creation, the Emergence of a New Physics”
Some of comments in response to sharing left me wondering if the contributor actually read Tiller’s research.
“Science often with statistic and the average deviation of the mean can say something is repeatable but is it really, or do we just have a lot of theoretical hope.”
Because Mr. Emoto’s work is in question due to “getting the right picture” does not mean all scientists who question the current paradigm (box) do so in unethical manners.
“Dr. Tiller is one of the most brilliant scientists the world has known. I have personally had the privilege to know him as a colleague on the faculty of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University. Myself being an experimentalist in surface physics research, I admired Tiller's skill in experimental research, while his real strength was unsurpassed command of theoretical physics and applied mathematics.”
Klaus Heinemann, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor, Stanford University
It’s interesting to note that Tiller used three other target materials, besides water, in his intentionality research; the liver enzyme alkaline phosphate (ALP), the main cell energy storage molecule, adenosine triphosphate, (ATP), and living fruit fly larvae, drosophila melanogaster.
Tiller’s words on the results are as follows: “A totally unexpected and critically important phenomenon arose during repetitive conduct of any of these IIED (Intention Printed Electrical Device) experiments in a given laboratory space. It was found that, by simply continuing to use an IIED in the laboratory space for approximately 3 – 4 months, the laboratory became “conditioned” and the state of that “conditioning” determined the robustness of the above mentioned experimental results.”
And
“To date, we have consciously created six different “conditioned” spaces for our experiments with one having remained in the “conditioned” state for over a year after removal of the IIED. We are now moving out to try and reproduce these remarkable results in other people’s laboratories around the U.S. We think that they can be created in various settings, such as hospitals (nursery, surgery), offices (psychiatrist, psychologist), churches, homes and manufacturing facilities, with a different specified intention for each. It seems to be a practical way to gradually raise the symmetry state of the earth to a new level of potentiality and possibility. Of course, elevated and loving human consciousness is a likely requirement for sustaining and nourishing that stable higher symmetry state.”
First what struck me was Tiller” words, “totally unexpected.” They do not seem to be the words congruent with a scientist who has predetermined his hypothesis outcome; neither do they exhibit the qualities of a man who is as clutched by “ego passion” or “wishful thinking.”
Maryanne there is much wisdom in what you say how one can easily get caught up in the passion of one’s pursuit, and this Tiller definitely has passion and I think he is also open to having his work scrutinized and criticized. I would image he would whole heartedly agree with the sentiments you put forth regarding harmony within ourselves and in relationship to the universe of which we are a part of.
One last excerpt from his paper which I hope will inspire members of this group to read his research… “This seems remarkably like the general human experience wherein a group of well-intended individuals come into a room to meditate together, pray together, meaningfully commune from a “spiritual” perspective together, etc. Then, an elevated and tangible “field of consciousness” seems to fill the room and one doesn’t want to leave this room. When the group eventually leaves, a residue of the experience remains in the room and slowly disperses. If this gathering meets daily in the same room for the same purpose then, after years to decades of such processing, the room takes on a seemingly permanent “conditioning” that can be tangibly felt by most individuals when walking singly into the room. Some of these sites become what we currently call “sacred spaces.”
What I find amazing about Tillers research are the results; they offer the opportunity to heal a divide that has existed in the West for sometime between spiritualism and science. For us in the Western world it takes a physicist before we are willing to hold onto our own felt experience of our interactions with others and nature, but if it takes research to verify what we feel, then so be it.
Sincerely,
Michael (MAK)
I am glad to have someone take on the matter of comparing Emoto's and Tiller's work. It has helped me organise my thoughts into something other than ranting and punching the keys on my bloody computer while throwing an outright benny.
ReplyDeleteBut in all seriousness, I agree with MAK's concern over putting a well-respected physicist, whose work has been performed according to the rigors of the scientific method, side-by-side with an interesting, somewhat eccentric man, who is not a scientist and doesn't pretend to be. Such a comparison, in and of itself, is unfair.
Emoto's casual experimentation with water came into the public eye because the filmmakers, to whom Mr. Gallagher referred, did not research the man's background well enough to know his work was all fur coat and no knickers -- the man had not ever satisfactorily proven his hypothesis to the satisfaction of anyone other than himself. In the process of including him in their film, these would-be geniuses unintentionally set about discrediting any of the concepts their film purported to prove.
Of Emoto it is reported, "Even sympathetic commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls, and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community. In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings.
"In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto. Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist, and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs."
Thus, by his own admission, Emoto’s approach is a universe away from the work of Tiller and others who follow scientific protocols and openly extend the invitation for their work to be replicated by others.
One of the truly unfortunate elements of all with Emoto’s work, is that it has tainted the work of respected scientists like Tiller and others and made has made it easy for those who resist the opening of a new paradigm to keep the gates amply locked and barred. Furthermore, even if there were some truth to Emoto's theory, his shoddy science has made it near impossible for any respected scientist to take the experiment on with any aim other than to disprove it (to do otherwise would place one on the outs with one's colleagues).
There is, in my experience, a reason that is yet to be fully and sufficiently explained for the observer effect and other such phenomenon. Tiller's explanation begins to point us in that direction and most assuredly gives us a substantial hint as to this power of manifestation that has eluded our smaller minds for eons.
Lastly, while I understand Michael (MAK)'s desire to heal the divide between so-called spiritualism and science and share in his frustration, the very mention of this perception also annoys me as it pretends that such a schism actually exists anywhere other than in our own stubborn minds. As long as we continue to insist upon referring to yet-to-be measured phenomenon as "supernatural", "mystical" "metaphysical" “spiritual” and the like, we re-establish the backroom agreement made so long ago that pitted science against religion for reasons that are, by today's standards, utterly absurd.
Respectfully,
Nigel
Mak & Nigel,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry Mak for making such a great assumption. I only read the link you gave me and do not know Mr. Tiller's full work. From your newly presented information, its clear that Mr. Tiller is proving the power of intention scientifically speaking, where Emote as Nigel presents is not.
Thank you both for explaining this for me, I simply wanted to interject my confusion and am open to learning my misperception on the subject.
I am sorry for this distraction in a most brilliant conversation on intention.
Please forgive this foolish young man who is only trying to understand with all my misinformation.
I do have good intentions & appreciate you allowing me to learn here.
Best,
Tom
Excellent attitude, Tom. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteWe're all in the process of learning and our good intentions and willingness to extend one another grace when we take well-meaning mis-steps continues to make the experience of this blog so valuable for me as well.
Christopher
I cannot claim to explain how or why the Power of Intention works... but I know it does.
ReplyDeleteEach day that I choose to be aware of my attitude... and set my intention for the day... it turns out to be exactly what I declared it would be. Some of the most challenging situations or people that I need to meet... are turned around in beautiful ways... when I have set my intention beforehand that we would work through our challenges with love and grace.
I know that sounds simplistic in the middle of discussions about high science... and I don't believe for an instant that what I've described is even the least bit magical. I believe that we shape our reality with our minds and hearts... and create the world around us with either the Power of Love or the Power of Fear. Measure them any way you want... with what ever instruments you can find.
I'll always choose Love,
Jonnie
After tuning into the splendid hullabaloo generated by the lovely economic debate on page three of this blasted blog, I was sorely tempted to defect from what would normally be my preference -- a conversation that involves the brain, creativity, and this deliciously controversial notion of manifestation.
ReplyDeleteGood evening my lovelies. I've kept up my reading and heard my name mentioned (and undoubtedly cursed simultaneously) by Dot P. and others. But I've been far more entertained by reading this conversation than joining in.
But there is a question left lingering in my mildly inebriated brain this sumptuous evening. Assuming that we can see our own confused little lives well enough to have even the smallest measure of objectivity, what do we hope to accomplish by going public with the science of manifestation?
Have we at all contemplated that such secrets were kept secret for a reason? Placing the tools that may have founded the universe in the hands of everyday idiots sounds like a truly dangerous plan. Our societies are far too impatient to be mentored and tutored by the great minds of past eras who sat in elusive places that were hard to reach and only meted out this rather sacred knowledge to those who had passed the test of having relinquished their ego.
Now every bloody lunatic with a printing press or access to the frigging internet is telling the world the secrets of the ages. It's utterly mad. Worse than that, it's dangerous. We don't know what we're dealing with, I tell you truthfully. We’re digging out own graves.
Take it from one who knows,
The Fat Bastard Himself
There's more than a hint of truth to your warning, KBF. But is there truly another alternative now that the cat is out of the proverbial bag, as you say?
ReplyDeleteI think the most intelligent, hopeful chance we all have in this world is to preach the gospel of holisitic responsibility as far and wide as possible so that we begin to understand the actual implications of our actions. From there we can begin to seriously explore creative and collaborative solutions instead of just stumbling forward numbly creating more problems with every step.
It comes back to re-examining the essential question that we have visited several times in our conversations here:
"What is my ripple effect?"
Ellio
Damn you, Ellio. You got my mind going like a spinning top. I finally just decided to get out of bed at 5 AM, when any decent man would be snoring, and patter out a response to your last comment.
ReplyDeleteI believe you are quite right, you know? And what I'm sure you realize, if you think about it, is that holistic responsibility is also at the heart of systems thinking, actually. Furthermore, my friend it is directly relevant to the deeper investigation of the observer effect and observer expectancy. Have you thought about that?
And in terms of the power of intention and manifestation, how much of what we observe in reality is either actually altered at the molecular level by our intention, vs. experienced by us as an alteration based on our expectancy? It’s kind of wonderfully dicey, isn't it?
So as not to run off at the mouth and make sure everyone knows what I’m spouting off about, systems thinking is simply an approach to problem solving that views problems as a part of an larger overall system. The theory behind this mode of examination postulates that focusing on the outcomes of isolated problems (and this is wild folks) will only further develop the undesired element or problem (think of that in light of our current state of global affairs -- damn!)
So we might say, if we were rogue, that systems thinking is the process created to facilitate holistic thought and action -- and one might even conjecture, transformation itself. God, I think I may actually be getting a stiffy!
What I love about how this idea has evolved is that its framework is based on the idea that the component parts of a system will actually act differently when the system’s relationships are removed and the part is viewed in isolation. This is the observer effect, pure and simple.
Thus, and I agree with this logic fully, the only way to fully understand why a problem or element occurs and persists is to understand the part in relation to the whole.
This idea naturally flies in the face of classic reductionism (which if you pause for a moment -- is how we’re attempting to run the whole frigging world!). What this idea requires of us is a much deeper understanding of the systems we are involved with. It forces us to examine the linkages and interactions between the elements that comprise the entirety of the system as opposed to simply pretending that the individualistic parts function in an isolated universe (yet, knowing this, how often do we continue to seek solutions in isolation when it is clearly now an antiquated method?).
And here's another element of systems thinking that leads us right back to quantum physics. Even though events are separated by both distance and time (and this is so crucial to understand), small catalytic events can cause large changes in the larger more complex system.
Fully cranking on the epiphany that an improvement in one area of a system can adversely affect another area of the system literally drives some people bonkers. I watched how people reacted in the econ debate when you brought up the challenge around responsibility, brother. But this realization also gets to the heart of some of the comments by your chum Trinh. You know his old enlightened self gets it. That’s why they threw him out.
But bloody hell, man, think of this in terms of our own personal transformation process. It gets wildly impossible to know how one’s ripple effect is truly impacting the whole, doesn’t it? I’m excited by this, but admittedly a bit stymied as well. It’s brilliant, isn’t it?
Nigel
Nigel,
ReplyDeleteI was at the gym last night trudging away on the treadmill while speaking to my significant other, who has been giving much thought and voice to the economics discussion on the other blog string lately. He asked me what my thoughts are about the micro and macro economics models discussed by the folks on the other blog string, and I made a comment about the elegance and simplicity of systems matrix theories and neural network theories….. I tend to personally reside in that section of scientific thought and consequently that’s my first point of consideration in every debate, and I am quite excited about that particular school of thought. Excitement, it seems, that I share with you…..!
Someone, from what I understand, made a remark related to the potential viability (or lack thereof) of a whole world economy (and pardon me if I am misquoting, I haven’t actually read the comment I am referring to), which made me laugh. We only have one world, so consequently we have – admittedly on a large scale - only one world economy, but it is clearly divided into multiple “nodes” and form something which I personally see as a network. And, just like you are saying, Nigel – the absence, presence, removal or alteration of one such “node” has effects on all others, though the effect may not be immediately visible or identifiable without magnifying lenses. Even (and maybe especially so) within the field of economic theory (which I am the first to confess my lack of specific knowledge of, I believe).
I have been on a private rant about the fact that our blog discussions have – from time to time - tended toward intellectual ping-pong. We, all living things on this planet, are undeniably connected and dependent upon each other, naïve though I may sound to some. This blog, for instance, has its own economy, where thinking and ideas represent the currency and we receive payment in terms of whether or not we are given attention by the other blog contributors. Folks who believe themselves of lesser quality educationally or intellectually speaking repeatedly apologize for their perceived “insufficiency,” and conversely, the intellectual “elite” apologize for their intellect’s ability to “offend” others…..And all of us get something in return for our contribution, whether it be attention, discussion, status, recognition or just entertainment. I keep asking myself what would happen if we all stopped reading, stopped caring about each other’s view points; quit posting our comments? How long would it take before the blog just died? Indifference, whether it be economic, religious, scientific or just plain inter human, appears to slow every system down to minimum capacity; allowing enough energy only for the most basic personal maintenance and furthering numbness and egocentrism.
Neural network theory describes the endlessly complicated, yet intrinsically simple conglomerate world of chemically and functionally interconnected neural processes. Help me, someone, and tell me I am completely off my rocker when attempting to see economics through the same lens.
Trihn,
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about your words over the last months, and how the group is saying this transformational knowledge might be very dangerous for human beings, which reminded me of some quotes from my mentor.
“This is it. There are no hidden meanings. All that mystical stuff is just what’s so. A master is someone who found out.”
“The essence of communication is intention.”
“If you keep saying it the way it really is, eventually your word is law in the universe.”
--Werner Erhard
Best,
Tom
Is this what you meant to teach us?
Anonymous, as usual, you have cooked our conversation down to a wonderful distillation -- have sorted through the bullshit and pointed us toward what's really at stake. I love it when I laugh as I read someone's comments. I particularly love it, as in this case, when I'm laughing because of being purely delighted with what I read. As Nigel remarked to close out his last comment, "it's brilliant!"
ReplyDeleteIt's been recommended that we're at one of those junctures when combining the topics again would be wise. I'm going to look for some input as to just how to construct our next discussion, so hang tight everyone. We'll have a new conversation beginning later today or early tomorrow.
Thanks!
Christopher
P.S. I love the idea of social currency. It's something we've been exploring in our work as well.