thanks for taking the time and making the effort to reply with such a
lengthy
message.
>What is the science of today but the 'voodoo' of yester-years?
yes this question seems to always pop up...and although I seem to keep
answering
it no one seems to recall what I've already said to this or perhaps my
comments
have simply been so dull that they havent had any impact or garnished
attention
by the positive critical thinkers on here. This is wont to happen as I
simply am
not thoroughly entertaining at the best of times.
>The only
>difference between so-defined 'white magic' and 'black magic' is intent.
well, luckily for me you seem to have answered your own question and I
shan't
need to play the echo again. Ever hear the poem by Frost? "Two roads
diverged in a wood
and I... I chose the one less traveled by...and that has made all the
difference..."
In my humble, miserable and short lived existence on this mudball we
call 'home' I have
found that while intent is not the summation of the state of one's soul
it can often
'make all the difference....' insofar as thoughts, emotions, actions,
and disposition
of the moment are concerned.
>When
>one's work is not for but to aid another in need, with no concern for fame,
>money, nor power for one's own self, ie, no ego-gratification involved, how
>can it be said to be wrong or 'evil'?
JC a meritous point I'll grant you, but this assumes that 'evil' is only
the domain
of the human internal. I respect your choice of believing this... I
just don't happen
to subscribe to this line of thought. Evil is sometimes external and
comes in many pretty colours
and tasty flavours. What rat would consume a poison that tasted bad?
Why do humans
insist on consuming pretty fragrant poisons, i.e. menthol cigarettes.
>Is using an instrument, such as the pyramid device, to selflessly benefit
>another person (or persons) all that different than a similar situation, such
>as in prayer (which is, semantics aside, fundamentally no different than
>meditation), where the 'experimenter' is not using a pyramid, but a small
>religious icon held in the hand such as a string of beads or a cross?!
now there is a loaded question if I ever saw one! grin... bravo, I
applaud your
verbal dexterity! But we both know quite well that the physicality of
the object
in this case is irrelevant...rather it is the contextual relationship of
the human
psyche / soul to the object which is the concern. For you see, intent
aside and
semantics aside...if the pyramid device works on purely a scientific
principle
then a non-intentional, randomized yet linear instruction set, should
still be
able to produce a result! If the persons 'soul' or psyche must act as
the key
component then we are dealing with something quite different. I can
elaborate to this
end, if need be.
>For you anti-catholics out there, these, in this case, should not be construed
>as 'idolatry' but merely as aids for which to focus one's attention. In the
>same veign, why couldn't the pyramid device, and similar devices, not be seen
>as 'tools of the Devil' but as prayer 'amplifiers'?!
JC, no offense but this statement seems less robust than your previous
one.
You say '...should not be construed as...'. But I'm of the opinion that
one
could easily 'construe' this. I've always found it peculiar that
Catholics
play with empty talismans or ones which may be haunted with a 'force'
masquerading
as something quite opposite to what they think / believe is attached to
said icon.
As an anecdotal non-serious piece of evidence...how many movies have you
seen
where Hollywood portrays the fearless but weak, effeminate, ineffectual
and feeble
Catholic 'priest' who wields 'icons' such as holy water or holy batons
or crosses
against the forces of darkness...superficial damage might ensue against
said dark entity
but in the end these icons avail not and the poor hapless priest is
shredded to a bloody
pulp! So much for the power of God and his misguided icon wielding
priest, bwahahahahaha.
Maybe Hollywood knows something some of the masses don't? Who knows,
the point is I've
heard this all before. Besides, if God were God, what on EARTH would one
of his
'followers' require a 'prayer amplifier' for? But then perhaps he grows
deaf as he ages
and needs all the help he can get to hear everyone thats bleating and
pleading for his help.
>Though I respect the religions of others, I prefer, for myself, the concept of
>'spirituality' (which is not, I feel, a quality exclusive to religion).
Sure, I can appreciate that. I've rarely been a fan of religion myself.
I would like to state however, ONCE again... that one may claim a
'scientific fact'
to exist and intrepret said fact in accordance with their own religous
perspective
or spiritual philosophy (which in reality often turns out to really be
of a religous
nature anyway, regardless of who or what the deity is) and then attempt
to wrap the whole
thing up like one big tortilla package and proffer the messy lot off to
whoever
they may, as being a 'scientific fact'. My concern isn't that we
exclude or include
the individuals spiritual twist or spin ...only that we recognize it as
such and honestly
state the boundary. I may come across a phenomenon, but for me to state
this as a fact
which I've previously digested and imbued with my own 'spiritual' twist
and then proceed
to ram it down your throat, I am not only being inconsiderate but also
deceitful. IF I plainly
state that 'look, I saw this really weird thing, and heres what I feel /
believe / think
it means' then I'm being FAR more considerate and straight forward.
>Perhaps the platitude comes to mind, "the road to hell is paved with good
>intentions"--however, if we let that ideal stop us, nothing for the good of
>another would ever be attempted.
this reasoning seems somewhat circular, or am I missing something?.
Please bear in mind
that I really AM a simpleton and sometimes need these things spelled out
slowly. Good
intentions followed by no actions or bad actions 'lead the road to hell'
where as in
my humble opinion 'good intentions followed by good actions' should go
quite the opposite
direction.
>And, of course, we could have never read the Bible story of "the good
>Samaritin." I wonder what the 'pharisees' and 'saducees' of today might have
>said. Maybe something like, "DANGER, DANGER....WILL ROBINSON!" (Pardon my
>levity.)
Grin, no pardon needed! Lets keep the discussion light! Sigh, thats
really refreshing
JC! That you and I can talk and have this conversation and agree to
disagree and
no one blows up or stomps off in a huff. Your levity is most welcome...
I love it!!!
hahahahaha, I killed myself laughing over the 'Lost in Space' bit!
Grin...
I do have to say that again I disagree with the 'we could never have
read the Bible story of...'
I think I understand why you feel this way and where you are coming
from, I just have
a different perspective on this matter.
>Please don't take me wrong, Don. I in no way mean this as a put-down of your
>beliefs.
JC, I totally understand and frankly am enjoying your comments and
appreciate
your feedback. As for 'putting down my beliefs' you would likely have a
difficult
time doing this as you really don't know exactly what they are! <g>
>But perhaps while you are exploring and scrutinizing all the
>possible ways that these pyramid experiments might be defined as
>'scientific'--thus letting you of the religious hook, so to speak, you might
>also want to re-examine some of those self-procalimed "Laws" found in the
>scriptures (of all religions).
Again, you seem to be 'assuming'. What religous 'hook' am I apparently
on?
I didn't know I was on one. OR have you for some reason decided that
since
my 'spiritual' persuasion is different, that some how I am to be deemed
'religous'
while you are not? As for the laws recorded in books such as
Deuteronomy et al.
I am quite familiar with them as well as other texts.
>I mean, which is most important, the 'letter', or the 'Spirit' of the law?--I
>think you know what I'm getting at, here. Regards,
Yes, I know exactly what you refer to here. If you wish to make the
above statement
and make it work for you in this scenario then I infer you do so under
the following assumptions;
1.) You suspect I am a Christian and since you are familiar with
certain buzzwords and ideologies
that might raise a flag in me 'Danger Will Robinson, DANGER!'
That I should immediately
be halted in my protest as above and concede to you that <insert
pic of red faced naive
farm boy wearing a straw hat here> 'aww shucccks, yer right
paw.. <boy scuffles dirt ground
bashfully with his old second hand boots>.. its the Spirit of
the Law that matters more....'
2.) That this argument represents the full spectrum of what my
ideology might encompass
in regards to the relationship and boundaries of 'Law' and
'Spirit'
I hate to disapoint you mon ami, but my opinion on this is rather
different. While I did not begin
this thread to provoke a discussion on philosophy etc... since you've
asked I will answer... siiiigh..
(Why can't a person discuss scientific discovery and exploration with
out being harangued by sophists
with a vendetta against God? grin)
Here's my take on it, the Law and the Spirit come from the same Source.
The Spirit does not invalidate the Law it only pardons the remorseful
transgressor from the Law.
Which means they both still matter. In my opinion it would be very
difficult and frankly highly
counter productive for one who claimed to be walking IN the Spirit to do
something that would be
construed as highly un-Lawful. How likely is it that someone like
Mother Theresa would go on a
Manson type killing spree? And were she to claim, hey 'my intention was
good' would we believe her?
Of if I do something which I am clearly instructed NOT to do, but hey...
I'm in the Spirit so what
the heck? Now its ok? I'm of the opinion it doesnt quite work that
way. But I suspect the hard part here
for you isnt so much what or why I believe...rather perhaps you don't
feel terribly comfortable with
me elbowing for room at the scientific table of discovery along side you
since I am 'different' and
do not comply with your sense of spirituality...much easier to label me
with a 'religous fanatic'
sign etched into my forehead and send me on my way back to the
un-scientific religous gomer yokels
who havent got a clue as to what science is all about and keep the
science for the sophists. <g>
Ok, now I'm REALLY getting tired of discussing philosophy on here, I
DON'T want to any more
and I'm sure there are many out there that would be just as happy as I
if we could move on with
discussing science and discovery... I'd like to stay and hang out with
you chaps but can we simply
agree to dis-agree on some of these philosophical issues but work
together towards a somewhat unbiased
or at least be equally respectful of each others right of chosen
'spirituality' and get on with things?
I still want to hear feedback if at all possible and convenient from
anyone out there in regards
to a possible m-field connection with Jerry's experiment...
speculatively could something be setup which might
give us some interesting and hard data to examine? If so what does this
mean? Could this portend
the discovery of a way to possibly measure these fields? My
understanding is that Sheldrake doesnt
really have any great ideas yet on how to measure such ...at least
instrument wise?
Warm regards,
Your Canadian Correspondent,
Don J. S. Adams
>Sincerely,
>JC Snooky
-- I dread success. To havesucceeded is to have finishedone's business on earth, likethe male spider, who is killedby the female the moment he hassucceeded in his courtship.I like a state of continualbecoming, with a goal in frontand not behind.
-- George Bernard Shaw
---------------------------------------------------------------------Don J. S. AdamsManaging ConsultantMicrosoftMain Campus, Bldg 1Redmond, WAUSA
425-882-3431 USA403-998-4066 Canada