Rationale for the Reason

Sacredstar

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Essex, UK
RATIONALE FOR THE REASON
By Kim

The state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance. When humanity does not live in harmony with the natural laws of the universe, the energy that manifests attracts negativity bio-electromagnetically, which in turn creates chaos. Universal energy is a relationship and two-way communication system, e.g. when speaking on the phone it takes two to have a conversation, it is the same with metaphysics the interaction works both ways, another analogy ‘what you do to others you do to the self.’ This is the golden rule, and the Science of Being, that is buried amongst the wisdom of every religion and philosophy of the great and ancient indigenous peoples. Yet man is only now becoming a human being. By learning to understand the divine self, in this age of technological advancement and enlightenment, man is learning to appreciate this universe in ways that would have been unimaginable just 50 years ago.

Rationalists see reason as the faculty by which fundamental truths are apprehended. These fundamental truths are the causes, or "reasons", that things exist or happen. Their fundamental truths are based upon previous scientific parameters and, in their view, it is proven. In the 21st century things are changing rapidly as more and more scientists determine that there are metaphysical factors that impact on material existence. Science is going through a metamorphosis due to its growing relationship with these different metaphysical realities. When scientists change their intent and will, so do their perceptions, reason, and understanding.

However rationalists say that the metaphysical universe is subjective and based upon individual experience, and that is a result of irrationality, since it is unknowable beyond the individual experience and unquantifiable in an objective sense.


What does this conjure up in one’s mind? The word “irrational” is very emotive and irrationality comes from thought-led emotion, A rationalist’s view is fixed, and is certainly not based upon positive intent and will, producing the reason for the accusation of irrationality. So the response to rationalists, reductionists, and materialists is this:

Throughout the history of mankind we have made wrong assumptions based on physical matter and scientific evidence. Cellular Biologist, Professor Bruce Lipton said “For almost fifty years we have held the illusion that our health and fate were pre-programmed in our genes, a concept referred to as genetic determinacy. Cellular biologists now recognise that the environment, the external universe and our internal physiology, and more importantly, our perception of the environment, directly controls the activity of our genes. The quantum physics behind these mechanisms provide insight into the communication channels that link the mind-body duality. An awareness of how vibrational signatures and resonance impact molecular communication constitutes a master key that unlocks a mechanism by which our thoughts, attitudes and beliefs create the conditions of our body and the external world. This knowledge can be employed to actively redefine our physical and emotional well-being.”

Until Geiger came along we didn't know that radiation existed, but it was always there and we were always affected by it. It was the invention of the achromatic microscope in 1830 by Joseph Jackson Lister that enabled his son to write his paper on antiseptic surgery. From this moment on we had proof that reality also exists in the invisible. Radio and televisions sets are also detecting and processing invisible energy frequencies. Scientists at the cutting edge now accept that everything is an energy field, operating at different frequencies, some even embrace the different dimensions. Some scientists and rationalists are still trying to fit some metaphysical concepts into old models due to previous perceptions, rationality, and reason. This just will not work in many cases; an example of this is remote viewing used by the CIA, Russian and Indian intelligence.

Through experience and research, we know that as a person changes their consciousness, their perceptions, and then their reality, also changes. Intelligence agencies, know that remote viewing works from the evidence of their experience, and they appear to care less about how it works, as long as it does! It’s quite incredible that government intelligence agencies are the leading supporters of metaphysical reality.

Now the rationalist wouldn’t try a healing treatment through the use of remote viewing, because it doesn’t fit into an existing proven scientific model. The intelligence agencies have utilised remote viewing, for in excess of twenty years, and the scientists are now drawn to substantiate the metaphysical reality through reasoning. Once again, a two-way interaction with the universe.

I predict that due to the change of consciousness, intent and will, the approaching years will bring us completely new models, and understanding of the fundamentals of the cosmos. Intent is the will that creates the reason, reason then creates the thought and the reasoning. So then in consciousness is the intent/will human or divine for the rationalist? The divine dichotomy!

To the metaphysician, healer, and cutting edge scientist, divine intent is the will-to-good of harmony – the harmonic concordance of the universe; otherwise known as the symphony of creation, which emerges with a vibration of energetic correspondence, patterns, cycles, and spheres of existence, in addition to different dimensional reality and consciousnesses.

The first principles of the design and architectural blue print gives every energy a reason for being, each aspect is interrelated and interdependent. To live in harmonic relationship with the energy of all creation, one needs to have a positive balance in one’s own life. Positive feelings are harmonically compatible with the universe and keep the universe and your being in balance energetically. Positivity also creates an improved design and a higher state of consciousness due to the bio-electromagnetics of intent and will. It is the first cause and part of the natural law of the first cause and effect.

Matter is the effect of spiritual laws, and these natural laws self-regulate the nature of being. Physical matter also impacts on the original cause and first principles, and this we witness in the response from mother earth, who responds to its people who are creating the disharmony, again the two way interaction.

We are passing through one of the great natural transitional periods in the history of human kind. We are laying the foundation for the emergence of a new species of positive human being, at the same time as experiencing massive, chaotic earth changes, some of which the scientists cannot understand, due to a lack of historical records and scientific models!

The divine reason, immanent in nature and in man.

Welcome to the new rationale for the reason!


an article written by Kim alias Sacredstar
inspired 26/12/04
 
b'shalom Sacredstar,

thank you for the post.

as this is the science section of the forum, i would like to ask you to provide sources for the experiments which you are referencing to draw your conclusions.

for instance, when you state:

The state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance.

i would expect to find some corresponding experimental data that confirms this assertion. do you have such data to provide so that we may investigate your claims?
 
Dear Vajradhara

Every school of complementary medicine and therapies teach this. From the 5,000 years of Shiatsu and Acupuncture in the east to the 20th century Kinesiology in the West.

I put the article here as it seemed the most appropriate.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar
 
PNI research might be interesting for you to view from a medical standpoint on the mind-body connection. I must admit I do not view these research papers as in CM we work with this reality all the time so we have no need for research due to our experiences and successes with our clients.

The whole purpose of the article above was to demonstrate that some scientific models/research is not available for the reasons stated.

Blessings in abundance

Sacredstar
 
Namaste Sacredstar,


the connection between mind and body has been well known in our cultures for thousands of years and there is plenty of empirical evidence to support this view, in both the East and West. it is a bit amusing to hear westerners react as if this is some "new" discovery :)

so that's not really what i'm asking about. on the contrary, i'm asking about some assertions that do not seem to be supported by evidence.

for instance, can you justify your assertions in this paragraph:

Rationalists see reason as the faculty by which fundamental truths are apprehended. These fundamental truths are the causes, or "reasons", that things exist or happen. Their fundamental truths are based upon previous scientific parameters and, in their view, it is proven. In the 21st century things are changing rapidly as more and more scientists determine that there are metaphysical factors that impact on material existence. Science is going through a metamorphosis due to its growing relationship with these different metaphysical realities. When scientists change their intent and will, so do their perceptions, reason, and understanding.


i.e. do you have some evidence to support your assertion that when a scientists changes their intent and well, their perceptions, reason and understanding also change?

do you have some evidence to support your assertion that rationalists, which i am, only view reason as the proper method of ascertaining truth propositions?
 
Dear Vajradhara

Vajradhara said:
the connection between mind and body has been well known in our cultures for thousands of years and there is plenty of empirical evidence to support this view, in both the East and West. it is a bit amusing to hear westerners react as if this is some "new" discovery :)

Well I guess when you say Westerners you mean most people? I have certainly embraced this view for more years then I wish to remember.

Vajradhara said:
do you have some evidence to support your assertion that when a scientists changes their intent and will, their perceptions, reason and understanding also change?

Yes and also the outcome of the experiements. Professior William Tiller www.tillerfoundation.com did the research on scientists intent changing the outcome of scientific experiements.

I also have research on work that I did with underprivileged families where by them changing their thoughts, beliefs and perceptions by changing their will and intent they changed their reason, understanding and physical reality. But the report costs £65.00.

Vajradhara said:
do you have some evidence to support your assertion that rationalists, which i am, only view reason as the proper method of ascertaining truth propositions?

Your questions on this thread are the evidence big smiles!

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar
 
Namaste Sacredstar,

thank you for the post

Sacredstar said:
Well I guess when you say Westerners you mean most people? I have certainly embraced this view for more years then I wish to remember.
no, i mean people from the West, not the East. which is, by the by, where "most" people live.

actually, to be a bit specific, i really mean within the paradigm of Greek philosophical thought, which is the foundation of Western rationalism and the scientific method and all sorts of other neat things. as, quite clearly, you can be a western person and not be trapped within the Greek philosophical models.

Yes and also the outcome of the experiements. Professior William Tiller www.tillerfoundation.com did the research on scientists intent changing the outcome of scientific experiements.
thanks for the link, i'll check it out.

I also have research on work that I did with underprivileged families where by them changing their thoughts, beliefs and perceptions by changing their will and intent they changed their reason, understanding and physical reality. But the report costs £65.00.
i presume they were not scientists, correct?

nevertheless, this is not a new phenomena by any means. this is the operational understanding of reality that has existed in the Orient (for lack of a better term) for thousands of years. heck, we even have the time scale of the universe correct, and we knew that nearly 5000 years ago :)

Your questions on this thread are the evidence big smiles!
i'm afraid that my questions are not, in fact, evidence of any particular thing. evidence, as you well know, in the scientific field is only derived through a methological process wherein the results of the experiment are verified in repeated tests and then peer reviewed to ensure the proper methodologies were followed.

as such, my question is just that. a question.. which, i note, you did not answer :)
 
Dear Vajradhara

Your response is not surprising as you say you are a rationalist.

You are correct what I am saying is not new and it was not intended to be. I honour the East and mention the ancient philosophers in the article.

Yes correct the underprivileged families were not scientists but every person is born with the potential to be a scientist, artist, musician, adventurer and inventor.

You said 'as such, my question is just that. a question.. which, i note, you did not answer' my response to rationalists is the intent of this article as such the article explains my response to you on all counts.

blessings in abundance

Sacredstar
 
Sacredstar said:
You said 'as such, my question is just that. a question.. which, i note, you did not answer' my response to rationalists is the intent of this article as such the article explains my response to you on all counts.

blessings in abundance

Sacredstar
just so i'm clear here...

your view is that any questions posed by people that consider themselves to be rational are already addressed in the article?

however, the question that is posed is outside of the scope of the article. how, then, can said article address the query?

the question that i'm asking is based on your initial assertion, thusly phrased:

The state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance.

to which i'm asking you to provide some intersubjective evidence to substantiate this assertion.

unfortunately, the intersubjective evidence to support this assertion is not contained in the article as far as i can discern. if it is, perhaps you can facilitate this process by pointing it out?
 
Kindest Regards, Sacredstar, and a late welcome to CR!

Sacredstar said:
The state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance. When humanity does not live in harmony with the natural laws of the universe, the energy that manifests attracts negativity bio-electromagnetically, which in turn creates chaos.
Just curious, how does war figure into your equation here? If the "natural laws" include "eat or be eaten," how does that figure with the "peace, love and harmony" I hear so many espouse? There are, after all, things in nature that are not very pretty to look at, but are still a part of the natural reality. Do you advocate looking to nature as a source for morality? After all, nature demonstrates repeatedly non-commital fathers, and even mothers. Nature advocates keeping harems. Nature advocates eating one's children. Etc., etc., etc. Natural laws are wonderful creations, to be sure, but I seriously question looking to them for moral guidance.

This is the golden rule, and the Science of Being, that is buried amongst the wisdom of every religion and philosophy of the great and ancient indigenous peoples.
Indigenous peoples know of where I speak, it is from them that I draw my questions here. They understand intimately the cycle of life and death.

Rationalists see reason as the faculty by which fundamental truths are apprehended. These fundamental truths are the causes, or "reasons", that things exist or happen. Their fundamental truths are based upon previous scientific parameters and, in their view, it is proven.
Do you see this as a bad thing?

In the 21st century things are changing rapidly as more and more scientists determine that there are metaphysical factors that impact on material existence. Science is going through a metamorphosis due to its growing relationship with these different metaphysical realities.
One can hope, but metaphysics are generally beyond the scope of rational science. It is hard to quantify the unquantifiable. Otherwise, we could prove, or not, the existence of God.

When scientists change their intent and will, so do their perceptions, reason, and understanding.
Ah, Schroedenger's (sp?) cat?

What does this conjure up in one’s mind? The word “irrational” is very emotive and irrationality comes from thought-led emotion, A rationalist’s view is fixed, and is certainly not based upon positive intent and will, producing the reason for the accusation of irrationality.
Might it rather be said that a rationalist looks to where the evidence leads, rather than leading the evidence to a foregone conclusion?

Throughout the history of mankind we have made wrong assumptions based on physical matter and scientific evidence.
Oh, have we? Really? It is a terrifying thought that modern medicine is based on wrong presumptions.

Cellular Biologist, Professor Bruce Lipton said “For almost fifty years we have held the illusion that our health and fate were pre-programmed in our genes, a concept referred to as genetic determinacy. Cellular biologists now recognise that the environment, the external universe and our internal physiology, and more importantly, our perception of the environment, directly controls the activity of our genes.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Genetic predisposition is just that, predisposition. If cancer runs in your family, then there is a good chance you will get it. Maybe not, if you take precautions. Likewise, even if cancer does not run in your family, you can still get it if you participate in activities that are known to precipitate cancer. I have a genetic disease, but no one in my family has it. Where did it come from? Did I will it upon myself? Hardly.

The quantum physics behind these mechanisms provide insight into the communication channels that link the mind-body duality.
I fail to see the connection, in light of the reality. Will or intent is great, but by itself it is nothing. Without effort, will is useless.

An awareness of how vibrational signatures and resonance impact molecular communication constitutes a master key that unlocks a mechanism by which our thoughts, attitudes and beliefs create the conditions of our body and the external world. This knowledge can be employed to actively redefine our physical and emotional well-being.”
Ah, so I brought my disease on myself? Interesting, since I have tried all of my life to be a good, decent human being, thanks to my mom.

Until Geiger came along we didn't know that radiation existed, but it was always there and we were always affected by it. It was the invention of the achromatic microscope in 1830 by Joseph Jackson Lister that enabled his son to write his paper on antiseptic surgery. From this moment on we had proof that reality also exists in the invisible. Radio and televisions sets are also detecting and processing invisible energy frequencies.
Uh-huh, so? What bearing does this have on your statements? It seems to me rather to support the rationalists you are against.

Scientists at the cutting edge now accept that everything is an energy field, operating at different frequencies, some even embrace the different dimensions.
Like who? I'm sorry, but I am still not convinced that string theory is anything more than a futile attempt with mathematics. Philosophy, so to speak, for the mere sake of philosophy. Or rather, mathematics for the mere sake of mathematics (and grant money).

Some scientists and rationalists are still trying to fit some metaphysical concepts into old models due to previous perceptions, rationality, and reason.
Because the "old" models work.

This just will not work in many cases; an example of this is remote viewing used by the CIA, Russian and Indian intelligence.
I have heard of this, but I fail to see the connection with what you are espousing.

Now the rationalist wouldn’t try a healing treatment through the use of remote viewing, because it doesn’t fit into an existing proven scientific model. The intelligence agencies have utilised remote viewing, for in excess of twenty years, and the scientists are now drawn to substantiate the metaphysical reality through reasoning. Once again, a two-way interaction with the universe.
More like forty years, by what I've read. Even so, there are more charletans at work than people who can really utilize the gift you speak of. And those that genuinely possess the gift you speak of, if they are sane, will not subject themselves to experiments to prove their abilities.

I predict that due to the change of consciousness, intent and will, the approaching years will bring us completely new models, and understanding of the fundamentals of the cosmos. Intent is the will that creates the reason, reason then creates the thought and the reasoning.
Ah, predisposition! Is that not bending the evidence to suit an agenda?

To the metaphysician, healer, and cutting edge scientist, divine intent is the will-to-good of harmony – the harmonic concordance of the universe; otherwise known as the symphony of creation, which emerges with a vibration of energetic correspondence, patterns, cycles, and spheres of existence, in addition to different dimensional reality and consciousnesses.
And so I return to my original comment, how do the "ugly" things in nature give us moral guidance? They are obviously in accord with the universe, or they would not exist. So, do we look to nature for our moral guide? Do we become animals for the sake of harmonizing with nature?

Positive feelings are harmonically compatible with the universe and keep the universe and your being in balance energetically. Positivity also creates an improved design and a higher state of consciousness due to the bio-electromagnetics of intent and will. It is the first cause and part of the natural law of the first cause and effect.
I would posit here that this is imbalance. Negative energy is also compatible with the universe. To weight everything to the positive is to not counter-balance with the negative, not to balance yin with yang, not to balance light with darkness. Positivity, by itself, is unbalanced.

Matter is the effect of spiritual laws, and these natural laws self-regulate the nature of being. Physical matter also impacts on the original cause and first principles, and this we witness in the response from mother earth, who responds to its people who are creating the disharmony, again the two way interaction.
What two way interaction? If all is "positive", then there is no balance. Original cause created matter; without original cause, matter would not exist.

We are passing through one of the great natural transitional periods in the history of human kind. We are laying the foundation for the emergence of a new species of positive human being, at the same time as experiencing massive, chaotic earth changes, some of which the scientists cannot understand, due to a lack of historical records and scientific models!
Perhaps due to the fact that nature herself refutes this?

I am pleased you have taken such great pains to post throughout this forum. Frankly though, I find myself in general disagreement. It is well and good to promote peace and harmony among all peoples, but to imply that this is the natural order of things, is a gross travesty of the evident facts.

Having said this, I do wish you peace, because that is one thing that sets humans apart from nature, at least philosophically if not in reality.

Shalom
 
Dear juantoo3

I would very much like to respond to all of your questions but can we please take three at a time, (I have a pea brain LOL) so if you would be so kind to choose the first three in order of importance to you I will do my utmost to give you responses so that we can reach a much clearer and hopefully mutual understanding of what I am attempting to achieve with this article, and in so doing it may assist me to revise the article so that I may reach out to those that are destined to be reached.

Thank you in advance your help is appreciated.

Sacredstar
 
Dear Vajradhara

Vajradhara said:
the question that i'm asking is based on your initial assertion, thusly phrased:The state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance.

Here is your own response

Vajradhara said:
the connection between mind and body has been well known in our cultures for thousands of years and there is plenty of empirical evidence to support this view, in both the East and West. it is a bit amusing to hear westerners react as if this is some "new" discovery

The west is catching up with the east and yes it is amusing how the medical profession are heralding it as new discoveries and that scientists are now working to understand the metaphysics that impact on us and our universe. For us healers it is wonderful that they are now proving what we have always known and have worked with on a daily basis. We live in very exciting times!

Blessings in abundance

Sacredstar
 
Namaste Sacredstar,

thank you for the post.

let me try again.

"The state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance."

in the Eastern view, this doesn't really make much sense. it seems to be drawing distinctions where none exist, in our view. there is no real methodology to seperate the physical from the spiritual realities, or, to use our terminology, there is no method to seperate the Absolute from the Relative.

however, it is not correct to say that the Relative conditions the Absolute, at least from our view.

nevertheless, my question to you is can you provide any intersubjective evidence to support your assertion that the state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance.

let me ask it like this.

what relevance does conditioned phenomena have to unconditioned phenomena? how can conditioned phenomena be an indicator of unconditioned phenomena?
 
Kindest Regards, Sacredstar!

Sacredstar said:
I would very much like to respond to all of your questions but can we please take three at a time, (I have a pea brain LOL) so if you would be so kind to choose the first three in order of importance to you I will do my utmost to give you responses so that we can reach a much clearer and hopefully mutual understanding of what I am attempting to achieve with this article, and in so doing it may assist me to revise the article so that I may reach out to those that are destined to be reached.

Thank you in advance your help is appreciated.
Ah, modesty! I have followed your numerous posts, and numerous threads, since you started posting, so I am of the opinion you are fully capable of giving as much as you are receiving. The context of what you present in this thread supports my statement. It is no small feat to present the opinion you do with some thought.

Now, I also understand how difficult it can be to put your heart into something like what you have written here, only to have it challenged. But that is how we grow in our understanding. It doesn't help your cause to call rationalists "irrational." I must keep in mind that this is your rationale for your reason.

A great deal of the answer you seek from me is contained in the thread "morality within evolution." There, a group of us began with a question, and looked deeply into much that surrounds the issue. The issue is brought up again by you here, only you claim to have the answer. Funny thing is, the group of us already looked at your answer, before you even arrived, and concluded (at least I did) that it is mistaken. Looking to nature for a moral guide implies humanity returning to the state of an animal. Humanity has come way beyond that now, to return is folly.

The natural universe is not composed entirely of positive energies. Indeed, if I recall my electronics correctly, a condition of only positive energy would simply shift the neutral potential to a higher level. Without a negative for the energy to flow to (or perhaps I have this backwards), there is no flow of energy. Yin and Yang. Hence, if only positive energy existed, there would be no energy flow. Since life requires energy to flow in order to exist, without energy flow there is no life. In other words, unbalance.

The natural state of the universe includes war, death, murder, among many other things humanity finds repulsive. These things are unpleasant for us to look at, but they are evidently part of the natural process or they would not exist. These things are not what humanity considers "moral," but they are natural and universal. The cycle of life and death, the web of life, the interconnection and interrelation of all life (animal, vegetable and mineral), these are things that compose in one form or another the aboriginal belief systems. Positive and negative, light and dark, joy and pain, happiness and sadness, love and fear, these are the dichotomies that compose this existence. Without one side of the scale, the other side is unbalanced, and the total can not exist.

Humanity has chosen the path of morality, generally speaking, for various reasons including promotion of the species. We frown on immorality because it does not promote the species. The question remains from the other thread, "where did humanity learn morality?" If God is positive (and this is assuming God exists, which I do), then promoting positive energy is to draw nearer to the Source, to draw nearer to God. In that respect, positive energies do advance the spirit towards that from which it came. Even so, without the negative pole, that energy cannot flow.

If it helps, think in terms of suns and stars, and the corresponding black holes. The suns give off light, heat and energies; and black holes absorb light, heat and energies. As a rule, suns do not take in, and black holes do not give out. (In reality, exceptions exist, so this is not a perfect example). Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. Original cause set all of this in motion, so matter (or energy) cannot "impact Original cause." Here, I presume you to mean influence or change by the term "impact." This would be tantamount to making God in our image.

It is with these natural realities that I refute the bias and assumptions in your presentation. Should humanity promote the positive aspects of reality? If they wish to draw nearer to the Source, then yes. But to ignore the negative, or imply that it has no purpose in the natural universe, is mistaken and frankly, unbalanced.

I do hope I have not been too harsh. I submit this with love in the hope of increasing understanding. :)

Shalom
 
Dear Juantoo33

juantoo3 said:
Now, I also understand how difficult it can be to put your heart into something like what you have written here, only to have it challenged. But that is how we grow in our understanding. It doesn't help your cause to call rationalists "irrational." I must keep in mind that this is your rationale for your reason.

Well I do not have a problem with being challenged when it comes from pure intent. Irrational was a term used by rationalists on this forum, so using a play on words which I enjoy to do, I was attempting and being inspired to respond with the rationalists own use of the word irrational! Irrational is never a word that I wouild normally use, accuse or even dream of thinking because in my domain everything is perfect because all is meant to be! Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder when we see all through GOD's eye's.

juantoo3 said:
Looking to nature for a moral guide implies humanity returning to the state of an animal. Humanity has come way beyond that now, to return is folly.

hmm..so do you honestly consider that the nature of your being is not of any higher consciousness then an animal? Yes animals have feelings, and thought led emotions, they like to have partners and some do not like to compete or work, they also remember their past lives and have problems with their inner child but they are animals. The human being also has animal traits of anger, fear, hostility, insecurity etc and it is these negative human traits that we can heal so that we can raise our consciousness beyond the instinct of an animal and be guided by our soul - the true nature of our spiritual being.

A wounded animal is dangerous indeed and there is plenty of wounded humans and wounded leaders on this planet. The sooner we heal ourselves and find the peace within the quicker there will be peace on earth and no more wars!

juantoo3 said:
a condition of only positive energy would simply shift the neutral potential to a higher level.

Correct and once one is vibrating at 5th dimensional consciousness which is a state of being not a scientific model, negativity cannot enter your domain unless you allow it. I give you this analogy angels can descend to us to communicate but we cannot go up to them unless we raise our consciousness which many on this planet are doing. So negative energy cannot reach the angels but the angels can reach us. Now if you have ever met an angel you would know that they do not need any negative energy to be in existence! But I do agree negative energy as a positive purpose in showing us what we need to heal within.


juantoo3 said:
Without a negative for the energy to flow to (or perhaps I have this backwards), there is no flow of energy. Yin and Yang. Hence, if only positive energy existed, there would be no energy flow. Since life requires energy to flow in order to exist, without energy flow there is no life. In other words, unbalance.

I think I have covered this on the yin yang thread yesterday. Energy cannot flow harmonically when negativity is in the way hence why we have chaos on the planet, when we harmonise both energies, the two energies become one.

juantoo3 said:
Positive and negative, light and dark, joy and pain, happiness and sadness, love and fear, these are the dichotomies that compose this existence. Without one side of the scale, the other side is unbalanced, and the total can not exist.

I understand and this is part of free will what we choose to co-create, the balance between the two is Grace the two become one, in oneness with GOD.

juantoo3 said:
Humanity has chosen the path of morality

Humanity has chosen the path of materialism and selfishness hence why the planet and its people are in a mess. The tree of life is dying and the roots are rotting with selfishness. The roots will be dug up, many energies are leaving the planet due to their self created disease and creation of imbalance. In the last nine months I have heard of a bereavement every two-three weeks it is a shocking state of affairs when you know that people can avoid disease by making the changes they need to make.


juantoo3 said:
Even so, without the negative pole, that energy cannot flow.

This is an old scientic model!

The latest in cellular biology proves that the cells can only go in one direction at one time they choose fear or love, when the cells choose fear the cells alienate from the community and then create disease. This is our nature and it is the true nature of the human being responding to its environment. www.brucelipton.com

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar
 
Sacredstar said:
The latest in cellular biology proves that the cells can only go in one direction at one time they choose fear or love, when the cells choose fear the cells alienate from the community and then create disease. This is our nature and it is the true nature of the human being responding to its environment. www.brucelipton.com

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

I found nothing about cells "choosing" love or fear on Bruce Lipton's website--perhaps you could cut and past the relevant parts of the "latest in cellular biology" that proves the above statement. I thought perhaps I would find something in this essay by Lipton from the website:

Insight into Cellular "Consciousness"
Dr. Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D. © 2001
Reprinted from Bridges, 2001 Vol 12(1):5
ISSEEM (303) 425-4625

Though a human is comprised of over fifty trillion cells, there are no physiologic functions in our bodies that were not already pre-existing in the biology of the single, nucleated (eukaryotic) cell. Single-celled organisms, such as the amoeba or paramecium, possess the cytological equivalents of a digestive system, an excretory system, a respiratory system, a musculoskeletal system, an immune system, a reproductive system and a cardiovascular system, among others. In the humans, these physiologic functions are associated with the activity of specific organs. These same physiologic processes are carried out in cells by diminutive organ systems called organelles.

This sweeping statement greatly oversimplifies the physiology of eukaryotic cells. While such a simplification does help one gain a basic understanding that cells carry out various functions using organelles, it becomes problematic later in the essay when the author starts referring to a cellular "nervous sysem" and "brain."

for those interested in the source, Bridges:

Bridges


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


Magazine of
The International Society for the Study of Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine
Editors
Carol J. Schneider, Ph.D., Editor in Chief
C. Penny Hiernu, Managing Editor


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


Statement of Purpose
Bridges, the ISSSEEM Magazine, is published primarily for the purpose of establishing a professional resource for practitioners and individuals who are interested in the study of informational systems and energies that interact with the human psyche and physiology, either enhancing or perturbing healthy homeostasis. Bridges is published quarterly and includes theoretical or informational papers, short research articles, case studies, reports, book reviews, and interviews with leading figures in the study or uses of subtle energies. Readers are encouraged to submit manuscripts to be considered for publication. Articles should be related to subtle energies and/or energy medicine and may range between 500 and 2500 words. Bridges includes diverse opinions and explorations. Any therapies presented are not necessarily proven, but are only indications of treatment modalities that may be of interest to readers. Papers included reflect the opinion of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the thoughts of the editors, the staff, or the board of ISSSEEM.

Back to Lipton's article:

Cellular life is sustained by tightly regulating the functions of the cell’s physiologic systems. The expression of predictable behavioral repertoires implies the existence of a cellular "nervous system." This system reacts to environmental stimuli by eliciting appropriate behavioral responses. The organelle that coordinates the adjustments and reactions of a cell to its internal and external environments would represent the cytoplasmic equivalent of the "brain."

Here Lipton redefines and again vastly simplifies the terms nervous system and brain to suit his own hypotheses. Here is the Webster definition of brain:
the portion of the vertebrate central nervous system that constitutes the organ of thought and neural coordination, includes all the higher nervous center receiving stimuli from the sense organs and interpreting and correlating them to formulate the motor impulses

Back to Lipton's article,

Since the breaking of the genetic code in the early 1950's, cell biologists have favored the concept of genetic determinism, the notion that genes "control" biology. Virtually all of the cell’s genes are contained within the cell’s largest organelle, the nucleus. Conventional opinion considers the nucleus to be the "command center" of the cell. As such, the nucleus would represent the cellular equivalent of the "brain."

Here Lipton sets up a strawman, the supposed scientific consensus that the nucleus is the cell brain. While many freshman bio majors like this kind of metaphor to help them memorize for their exams, it is far from the conventional opinion. Later Lipton will dramatically tear down this strawman.

Since the breaking of the genetic code in the early 1950's, cell biologists have favored the concept of genetic determinism, the notion that genes "control" biology. Virtually all of the cell’s genes are contained within the cell’s largest organelle, the nucleus. Conventional opinion considers the nucleus to be the "command center" of the cell. As such, the nucleus would represent the cellular equivalent of the "brain."
Genetic determinism infers that the expression and fate of an organism are primarily "predetermined" in its genetic code. The genetic basis of organismal expression is ingrained in the biological sciences as a consensual truth, a belief by which we frame our reference for health and disease. Hence the notion that susceptibility to certain illnesses or the expression of aberrant behavior is generally linked to genetic lineage and, on occasions, spontaneous mutations. By extension, it is also perceived by a majority of scientists that the human mind and consciousness are "encoded" in the molecules of the nervous system. This in turn promotes the concept that the emergence of consciousness reflects the "ghost in the machine."
The primacy of DNA in influencing and regulating biological behavior and evolution is based upon an unfounded assumption. A seminal article by H. F. Nijhout (BioEssays 1990, 12 (9):441-446) describes how concepts concerning genetic "controls" and "programs" were originally conceived as metaphors to help define and direct avenues of research. Widespread repetition of this compelling hypothesis over fifty years has resulted in the "metaphor of the model" becoming the "truth of the mechanism," in spite of the absence of substantiative supporting evidence. Since the assumption emphasizes the genetic program as the "top rung" on the biological control ladder, genes have acquired the status of causal agents in eliciting biological expression and behavior (e.g., genes causing cancer, alcoholism, even criminality).

Here a second strawman is set up: that reductionist thinking in genetics has lead scientists to conclude that all disease is the result of genetic predetermination. Not true. The interplay between genetics, physiology and environment has always been fullly appreciated in cell biology, genetics, and medical science in whole.

The notion that the nucleus and its genes are the "brain" of the cell is an untenable and illogical hypothesis. If the brain is removed from an animal, disruption of physiologic integration would immediately lead to the organism's death. If the nucleus truly represented the brain of the cell, then removal of the nucleus would result in the cessation of cell functions and immediate cell death. However, experimentally enucleated cells may survive for two or more months with out genes, and yet are capable of effecting complex responses to environmental and cytoplasmic stimuli (Lipton, et al., Differentiation 1991, 46:117-133). Logic reveals that the nucleus can not be the brain of the cell!

And the strawman is destroyed!! Oh thank you Dr. Lipton for saving science from the death grip of rational, reductionist materialism! Oh wait, or has he...

to be continued...

:D lunamoth (sorry, I couldn't resist)
 
Kindest Regards, Sacredstar!

Thank you for the response.
Sacredstar said:
Well I do not have a problem with being challenged when it comes from pure intent.
Very good. I am pleased to see you are not another closed-minded person who believes that by calling themselves open-minded, they actually are.

Since I managed to overlook the comment concerning irrationality elsewhere, I will dismiss it here.

in my domain everything is perfect because all is meant to be! Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder when we see all through GOD's eye's.
I do hope you will not object when I return to this later?

hmm..so do you honestly consider that the nature of your being is not of any higher consciousness then an animal?
Quite the contrary, and I believed I was quite explicit in conveying this. Humanity has moved far beyond the consciousness of an animal, which is a major reason I believe it is fallacy to look to nature for moral guidance.

While I can basically agree with some components of your assessment of animals (having feelings and even emotions), I do think some of your synopsis is anthropomorphizing, that is, applying human traits and characteristics onto an animal. As for past lives, etc., we will simply have to agree to disagree.

The human being also has animal traits of anger, fear, hostility, insecurity etc and it is these negative human traits that we can heal so that we can raise our consciousness beyond the instinct of an animal and be guided by our soul - the true nature of our spiritual being.
Why would these things need to be healed, if as you said earlier, "...everything is perfect because all is meant to be!"? Please note, it is not that I believe healing is not necessary, but your reason for healing is what I question.

A wounded animal is dangerous indeed and there is plenty of wounded humans and wounded leaders on this planet.
Ah, mixed metaphors, gotta love 'em! I just have to ask what it is exactly you mean by "wounded" when referring to humans, if by "wounded" when referring to animals I presume you to mean "injured?" Injured human leaders simply have to find a way to cope if they are to continue leading.

The sooner we heal ourselves and find the peace within the quicker there will be peace on earth and no more wars!
Yet, war is a natural state just as much as peace is. It has been since the first single celled creature ate another. "...everything is perfect because all is meant to be!", "...in God's eyes."

Don't get me wrong, I am not a warmonger. War is a tragic state to be in! But there are times when it is necessary. All life consumes other life, this is the natural state of chi, the flow of energy we have already discussed. Matter and energy do not "disappear," they merely take another form. In order for a life to continue, it must convert other life into energy. There is no food that was not once alive, in fact it is useless to the body if it has not been alive. So, all humans kill, directly or indirectly, in order to survive. This too "... is perfect because all is meant to be!"

Correct and once one is vibrating at 5th dimensional consciousness which is a state of being not a scientific model, negativity cannot enter your domain unless you allow it. I give you this analogy angels can descend to us to communicate but we cannot go up to them unless we raise our consciousness which many on this planet are doing. So negative energy cannot reach the angels but the angels can reach us. Now if you have ever met an angel you would know that they do not need any negative energy to be in existence! But I do agree negative energy as a positive purpose in showing us what we need to heal within.
I sense either a gross miscommunication, or else we see things very differently. What you portray here has no relation to the flow of electricity, or any form of energy, that I am aware of. Energy flows from a source to a collector. Period. We call the source "positive" and the collector "negative" in order to give them names. Without a source, there is no flow. Without a collector, there is no flow. With no flow, there is no life, spiritual or material. It is arguable whether or not a being, spiritual or material, can move across the flow or against the flow, but the flow must be present.

Energy cannot flow harmonically when negativity is in the way hence why we have chaos on the planet, when we harmonise both energies, the two energies become one.
Quite the contrary, without the collector or negative pole, energy cannot flow, harmonically or otherwise. Harmony, by my understanding, is by being in tune with the flow, not one or the other aspect of the flow. And that harmony is not achieved by the source alone, or by the collector alone. Harmony REQUIRES the balance of both!

I understand and this is part of free will what we choose to co-create, the balance between the two is Grace the two become one, in oneness with GOD.
Here, you confuse the daylights out of me, by contradicting yourself from earlier.

Humanity has chosen the path of materialism and selfishness hence why the planet and its people are in a mess. The tree of life is dying and the roots are rotting with selfishness. The roots will be dug up, many energies are leaving the planet due to their self created disease and creation of imbalance. In the last nine months I have heard of a bereavement every two-three weeks it is a shocking state of affairs when you know that people can avoid disease by making the changes they need to make.
Ah, what a lovely poetic picture! Might I remind again, "everything is perfect because all is meant to be!"

Humanity, life as we know it, the entire planet, was created material.
Selfishness is innate in higher order animals, not just humans. Selfishness is not (repeat NOT) necessarily a bad thing, it is how we survive by looking after ourselves, our loved ones and those things we hold dear. Does this get bent out of shape and misdirected? Of course, it can. I believe it is misdirected selfishness that you need to be concerned with. Just as excess in any "good" thing can be "bad."

And now I can return to my disease. According to you then, I have brought it upon myself? To which I once again reply, "hardly!" Sometimes bad things happen to good people, that's just the way life is, that is the hand I was dealt and I deal with it. It is between me and my God, and not for you to cast unwarranted or unmerited judgement.

(concerning the flow of energy) This is an old scientic model!
It is an old scientific model, dating probably to Ben Franklin's experiments with electricty. And it works. Everything from the lighting in your house to your television to your microwave to your computer. All modern electronics work by this "old" model, and since electricity is one of the 3 main components of sub-atomic theory (used to be four), the question returns then as to who to believe; you, or the evidence and scholarship of countless thousands who have taken the "old" scientific model and turned it into technology to improve our lives? Because it works!

Now, I realize I am running the risk of appearing dogmatic on this, but I think I would rather be dogmatic in this instance than to be misguided. This "old" model of the flow of energy has it's correspondence in other belief systems, most notably the Tao. And while I would happily defer to someone like Vaj who evidently is more versed than I on the subject of Taoism, I cannot dismiss out of hand and lightly the practical application of energy flow theory. I am afraid I have seen absolutely nothing to refute this "old" model.

The latest in cellular biology proves that the cells can only go in one direction at one time they choose fear or love, when the cells choose fear the cells alienate from the community and then create disease. This is our nature and it is the true nature of the human being responding to its environment.
I will be kind and leave this alone.

Love beyond measure
I too, wish you love beyond measure.

Shalom
 
Kindest Regards, lunamoth!

What a pleasure to hear from you again!

Thank you most sincerely for following up on this, and for the reinforcement-
lunamoth said:
Here a second strawman is set up: that reductionist thinking in genetics has lead scientists to conclude that all disease is the result of genetic predetermination. Not true. The interplay between genetics, physiology and environment has always been fullly appreciated in cell biology, genetics, and medical science in whole.
---
And the strawman is destroyed!! Oh thank you Dr. Lipton for saving science from the death grip of rational, reductionist materialism! Oh wait, or has he...

to be continued...

:D lunamoth (sorry, I couldn't resist)
LOL! That's OK, we're all here to learn and have some fun!
 
Back
Top