01-22-2010, 12:41 PM
Well summarized, Questioner. Your analogy of the radio dial is spot on. It might be worth while, later on, to create a thread dedicated to the study of why people believe what they do believe. I used to feel that it was mostly about how you were raised, but I have some cause to dismiss that idea now. Not totally dismiss, but at least begin to think that many more factors are at play. Well I'll keep a lid on that for now.
Indeed. I think if we take the definition of "thing" as a certain type of vibration, a certain type of frequency, than the analogy works well. If you can bring your own vibration to match close enough to the vibration of a thought (or idea, concept, philosophy) then you will effectively be "buying in to" that thought. Someone who is not of a similar frequency will not be compatible with that same thought, and thus you have two people who do not believe the same thing. Also helpful with the vibration framework is the idea of amplitude of the wave, and how this causes different people to act on different ideas. For example, I am interested in organic foods and am becoming more and more interested in vegetarianism. I'm bringing my vibration in line with that idea, but my "amplifier" for that vibratory idea is still set to a lower level. Now take for example the animal rights activists, hard core vegans and so forth. They have the same vibration, but their amplifiers are cranked way up, the waves of those vibes are spiking up and down.
I'm getting off topic with this idea a bit, but maybe you could say that we all have amplifiers in life that can crank out a certain number of watts. For ease of example, lets say I have a 100 watt amplifier. How I choose to use those watts with different concepts in life (thought forms / ideas / philosophies / personal interests / etc. etc.) will reflect my overall life philosophies and actions. Maybe 50% dedicated to being a father vibration, 20% career vibration, etc. But if you try to crank the dial to 100% on every part of your life, you'll burn out fast, just like a real amp would! Maybe this too can be expanded in to another thread later on.
Anyway, back on track now:
Yes. This explains quite well why it can some times take a loooong time for new ideas to become mainstream / accepted. As a matter of fact, I can't remember who said this, but that "Science only progresses with each succeeding generation of scientists." Paraphrased that, but the idea is that new ideas only really take hold once the generation of scientists who are forever apposed die off and are replaced by the younger generation. Sometimes it has to be that way I suppose.
These contrasting view points quite accurately reflect the basis for the positions. When we look at them in this way it is easy to feel empathy for the "other side" of the debate. Sadly, many people will make up their mind about their position on the issue only once when they first hear about it, and then not open their mind to the idea again. Not all, but many.
You can say that again. I wonder, and I again this is probably a better fit for our future "why do people believe what they believe" thread, if perhaps the 'repeaters' of any position on a topic can be likened to our societal model. It seems like we, humans, enjoy taking sides on things. Competitive sports, politics, school yard bullies and the bullied. But I digress, I'll save it for that next topic.
Oh yes, that's it in a nutshell as well. A lot of it does come down to fear- in this case, fear of your worldview being altered. Fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate.. hate leads to... suffering! Sorry, couldn't resist the easy Yoda plug.
On a final note, I'm looking forward to responding to your thread about reality soon, I hope today, although I'm not certain time will permit. And, I'm sincerely sorry to hear about your botched lunch experience. Sounds terrible. Not looking forward to absorbing that once our social memory complex forms, but then again, being in the complex will be cool.
(01-22-2010, 05:21 AM)Questioner Wrote: I've been thinking about some implications if the phrase, "thoughts are things" has some truth to it. This idea implies that ideas and concepts have their own existence, whether or not any person is currently thinking them. If a person has "tuned" their mind/body/spirit complex to receive this thought, then the thought appears in their mind and is available for them to accept as is, or to use as catalyst to inspire them to choose a different thought they would find more harmonious for their own evolution.
Indeed. I think if we take the definition of "thing" as a certain type of vibration, a certain type of frequency, than the analogy works well. If you can bring your own vibration to match close enough to the vibration of a thought (or idea, concept, philosophy) then you will effectively be "buying in to" that thought. Someone who is not of a similar frequency will not be compatible with that same thought, and thus you have two people who do not believe the same thing. Also helpful with the vibration framework is the idea of amplitude of the wave, and how this causes different people to act on different ideas. For example, I am interested in organic foods and am becoming more and more interested in vegetarianism. I'm bringing my vibration in line with that idea, but my "amplifier" for that vibratory idea is still set to a lower level. Now take for example the animal rights activists, hard core vegans and so forth. They have the same vibration, but their amplifiers are cranked way up, the waves of those vibes are spiking up and down.
I'm getting off topic with this idea a bit, but maybe you could say that we all have amplifiers in life that can crank out a certain number of watts. For ease of example, lets say I have a 100 watt amplifier. How I choose to use those watts with different concepts in life (thought forms / ideas / philosophies / personal interests / etc. etc.) will reflect my overall life philosophies and actions. Maybe 50% dedicated to being a father vibration, 20% career vibration, etc. But if you try to crank the dial to 100% on every part of your life, you'll burn out fast, just like a real amp would! Maybe this too can be expanded in to another thread later on.
Anyway, back on track now:
(01-22-2010, 05:21 AM)Questioner Wrote: People generally don't mind if you bump their mental dial one station over. But they often really resent it if you try to grab the wheel and spin them around to a whole new point of view that they are not ready to accept.
Yes. This explains quite well why it can some times take a loooong time for new ideas to become mainstream / accepted. As a matter of fact, I can't remember who said this, but that "Science only progresses with each succeeding generation of scientists." Paraphrased that, but the idea is that new ideas only really take hold once the generation of scientists who are forever apposed die off and are replaced by the younger generation. Sometimes it has to be that way I suppose.
(01-22-2010, 05:21 AM)Questioner Wrote: The psi debate is just one example. If consciousness precedes physical existence and the physical is moving into the metaphysical, then it's easy to tune in to the idea that thoughts are things and that nervous systems and chakras can serve as transcievers for energy that doesn't show up on any test equipment from Tektronix or H-P.
But if an amoral, indifferent physical universe randomly evolved consciousness as an artifact of random activity, and consciousness is nothing but a chemical process inside an individual skull in a world that has nothing that can't be explained by science (given enough time), why it's ludicrous to even consider seriously studying psi.
These contrasting view points quite accurately reflect the basis for the positions. When we look at them in this way it is easy to feel empathy for the "other side" of the debate. Sadly, many people will make up their mind about their position on the issue only once when they first hear about it, and then not open their mind to the idea again. Not all, but many.
(01-22-2010, 05:21 AM)Questioner Wrote: Each of these existing stations has several repeaters on adjacent frequencies, with their very enthusiastic, dedicated listeners. If you try to get them to the far end of the dial, they'll dig in their heels before you get to spin them around!
You can say that again. I wonder, and I again this is probably a better fit for our future "why do people believe what they believe" thread, if perhaps the 'repeaters' of any position on a topic can be likened to our societal model. It seems like we, humans, enjoy taking sides on things. Competitive sports, politics, school yard bullies and the bullied. But I digress, I'll save it for that next topic.
(01-22-2010, 05:21 AM)Questioner Wrote: For both sides, it's not safe to acknowledge, with kindness and respect, the feelings, hopes, and fears of the other side's people about what it might mean to be proved wrong. All of this emotional energy then goes into allegedly logical debates in which the fury leaks out. It's as though you weren't allowed to clean off the kitchen countertop, so whatever you cooked next oozed unexpectedly with yesterday's leftovers. (Can you tell I visited a worse fast food place than Taco Bell today?)
Oh yes, that's it in a nutshell as well. A lot of it does come down to fear- in this case, fear of your worldview being altered. Fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate.. hate leads to... suffering! Sorry, couldn't resist the easy Yoda plug.
On a final note, I'm looking forward to responding to your thread about reality soon, I hope today, although I'm not certain time will permit. And, I'm sincerely sorry to hear about your botched lunch experience. Sounds terrible. Not looking forward to absorbing that once our social memory complex forms, but then again, being in the complex will be cool.