|
Post by maat on Feb 28, 2007 22:39:46 GMT
On another thread Tamrin posed this very interesting question and I thought it deserved a thread of it's own. Russell's response to Tamrin's fantasy scenario was as follows:
>the 'possibility' of super intelligent unicorns monitoring and guiding our activities from a parallel universe and materialising only in rare cases where our universes intersect on binary transects of the nth dimension...Hang on, maybe I'm onto something!?
Philip
You certainly are on to something there. The unicorn is one of the most powerful images in a range of cultures and it is not because there was a great advertising campaign way back.
Many people in our culture claim to have seen unicorns and the claimants I have met (close to 30) all seemed to me to be reasonably competent humans able to run businesses and bring up families.
Interestingly most of those I questioned (about 20) had basically identical descriptions of the feel of the coat of their unicorn - like a silk carpet
Cheers
Russell I find that my criteria for considering acceptance of the 'unbelievable' is when you get the same reports from reliable witnesses of different cultures, age groups, belief systems, time frames, etc etc. If so many are reporting the same thing - then there must be something there.
To consistently deny what hundreds, thousands, millions? have seen is not being rational. Now, sometimes a phenomenon may have an explanation that is different from what is supposed, but that does not negate the existance of the phenomenon itself. As in Russells example above, if 20 people all say they have seen a Unicorn and they all say it feels the same way, then they must be experiencing something that exists on one level or another.
Thousands of people who have had conversations with people who have passed on/over/died and been told by skeptics that that is not possible "because no dead person has come back to tell us" must find it a trifle frustrating.
Same goes for those who see or interact with what is termed aliens/ufo's. Most witnesses are not UFO buffs, often they are the man on the street, the policemen who answers the call, whole towns (as in Mexico). So many people cannot all be deluded, together, at the same time. To think so is to delude ones self IMO.
As most of you know I am a crop circle fan - and I know people can construct them - and I know that they cannot construct complicated abstract ones in 15 minutes (has happened and witnessed by reliable non crop circle enthusiasts). Are crop circles much different to snow flakes ... ? We know no-one constructs them.
All that being as it may - can we consider here in the esoteric section what you personally would accept as proof, or pointing to proof, of something you had hitherto thought of as 'not possible' 'rubbish' etc
Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 28, 2007 22:56:14 GMT
Bro. MaatI would accept what you describe as proof of Fortean phenomenon, (albeit, even intentionally false reports count as such), in itself a fascinating field of study. What I doubt are instances of the slotting and interpretation of such experiences and/or reports into peculiar belief systems, where more mundane explanations (or indeed none at all) would suffice. Contrary to the song, "50 million Frenchmen" CAN be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 28, 2007 23:14:01 GMT
Bro. MaatI would accept what you describe as proof of Fortean phenomenon. What I doubt are instances of slotting such experiences and/or reports into peculiar belief systems, where more mundane explanations (or indeed none at all) would suffice. In the Lauderdale ritual there are references made to the Elementals, which might reassure some who see gnomes, fairies etc and start to doubt their sanity. Thought forms and their assumption forms a large part of the ritual working in other orders I am led to believe. Maybe Russell's unicorns can be thought of in this light. Royal Arch can be viewed from an Astronomical or an Astrological point of view. It's probably a natural thing to try and reconcile life's actual experiences with one's belief system. An evolutionary (devolutionary) process I would think. Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 28, 2007 23:23:02 GMT
Bro. Maat wroteMaybe Russell's unicorns can be thought of in this light. Indeed, but thinking something does not make it so. The thought may have its own reality but, compared to its subject, it is like Plato's shadows on the cave wall.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 28, 2007 23:27:12 GMT
>Thousands of people who have had conversations with people who have passed on/over/died and been told by skeptics that that is not possible "because no dead person has come back to tell us" must find it a trifle frustrating.
I recall an aboriginal from a remote part of Australia being interviewed on the TV. He still lived the traditional lifestyle and he said that every day his deceased ancestors showed him how to find food in the bush
Perhaps he was lying but he did not seem to have any reason to do that
I recall also General Patton who recounted that in 1917 he cowered in a shell hole in France and looked up into the sky and saw his grandfather in the clouds. His grandfather said: You are letting down the family. So Patton took up his rifle and ran towards the fighting
Patton said that after that he always consulted with his grandfather on the best tactics for the next days battle
Since Patton was arguably the best of the alllied generals I have to take his comments seriously
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 28, 2007 23:50:46 GMT
Bro. Russell wrote:Since Patton was arguably the best of the alllied generals I have to take his comments seriously History is not so single-minded in assessing Patton's career, which included period of instability.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 28, 2007 23:57:29 GMT
On another thread Tamrin posed this very interesting question and I thought it deserved a thread of it's own. For the record, it was Stewart Edwards who posed the question, "What would you accept as proof," to me.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 1, 2007 0:03:50 GMT
On another thread Tamrin posed this very interesting question and I thought it deserved a thread of it's own. For the record, it was Stewart Edwards who posed the question, "What would you accept as proof," to me. Thanks Tamrin Good question Stewart! Sometimes I think the question is more important than the answer. Maat
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 1, 2007 0:24:10 GMT
You may be familiar with Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions"Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to be a choice between incompatible modes of community life. Because it has that character, the choice is not and cannot be determined merely by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science, for these depend in part upon a particular paradigm, and that paradigm is at issue. When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm’s defence." This might suggest that there is no proof, it is merely that the adherents of the older paradigm die off Cheers Russell
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 1, 2007 1:16:49 GMT
If you are going to develop an argument concerning 'proof' then I would suggest you have to look at the whole rather than the desired object to which one might be attracted.
Scientic research is based on the premis that 'replication' is the standard of proof - that if such and such an experiment can be replicated by others then it must therefore hold good. But such a 'belief' is itself the subject of a belief system - no experiement can be replicated. There has always to be a differnce in a number of variables - the time, the space and the observer (subject/object duality) - any small variation of which will negate the 'standard' of replication. However, this generally is not considered which brings in Kuhn's theory of 'paradigm shifts' - it is not until there is an 'acceptance' by peer review that some theory holds good but it only holds good until some later shift become inevitable.
I would therefore argue that science and parascience utilise much the same ground - both require a 'belief system' to support their results - it all depends on the 'belief system' of the observer.
Which then raises a more interesting question - who constructs reality?
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Mar 1, 2007 1:39:00 GMT
Thousands of people who have had conversations with people who have passed on/over/died and been told by skeptics that that is not possible "because no dead person has come back to tell us" must find it a trifle frustratingYes its is - But the need to provide proof to other than the the "Live person "the "Dead Person" wishes to communicate with is not required. Normally the dead and the live are fully aware of each other - by evidence the dead will give. When the skeptic says it is impossible - that is their problem the dead wasn't talking to them. Yes I expect the Dead to prove themselves to the person they wish to communicate with that is part of the deal in working with them, but I have know desire to ask them to take part in some trumped up party trick just to please a Skeptic. On a purely psychic level I bet I am not the only forumite who has sat in a seance with the heavy table dancing around the room - but that in itself what does it prove - just that there are unseen energies - I wonder what effect the presence of a skeptic would have on such a gathering possibly those unseen who move the table would laughter and refuse to come out to play. Maat In the Lauderdale ritual there are references made to the Elementals. I hope you use them often - the more you do the more they are happy to work with you- sit quietly in the garden or the bush and see who scampers on the edge of your vision,,,, and yes you will probably be unable to prove anything to anybody but who cares - it is your experience. Try asking them for help next time you try and light a fire on a windy day... and you have the right to complain to them if you cant find your trowel in the garden
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Mar 1, 2007 1:56:50 GMT
Stolen from Maat's Link cause I liked it For Cayce, history is the story of souls being led to spiritual perspectives over the course of multiple incarnations. This is a group process as well as an individual one, since human relationships (and ultimately, events in history) are part of the teaching process through which these perspectives are imparted. Just as the Old Testament records God's guidance of the Israelites to a higher purpose, so do the readings record a similar process which begins with the first incarnations into the earth plane, meanders through the fall of Atlantis and corresponding rise of ancient Egypt and Central America- and culminates in the life of Jesus. History and metaphysics blur together in the Cayce readings if we go back far enough (e.g. to creation), delve deeply enough (e.g. to the mechanisms of reincarnation and clairvoyance which underlie the entire process), or focus on the example of Jesus (who is the subject of the next chapter).
I have often listened to Trance Mediums - the "souls" speaking through those mediums give interesting insights to both past and present - proof well that is from the listeners to decide. Joseph Smith, and Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana certainly believed in the unseen information they received. What proof is demanded of them
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 1, 2007 1:57:07 GMT
> you will probably be unable to prove anything to anybody but who cares - it is your experience.
Well my proposition is that reproducibility (by trained people) is an important aspect of a spiritual science - hence my sample of around 20 for considering tactile attributes of unicorns
And that reproducibility turns out to be important in group ritual
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Mar 1, 2007 2:02:39 GMT
> you will probably be unable to prove anything to anybody but who cares - it is your experience. Well my proposition is that reproducibility (by trained people) is an important aspect of a spiritual science - hence my sample of around 20 for considering tactile attributes of unicorns And that reproducibility turns out to be important in group ritual Cheers Russell Yes Russell you are correct as indeed we do when we introduce a group to seeing Auras...
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 1, 2007 2:04:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 1, 2007 3:02:09 GMT
>You seem to have taken his passage out of context,
Philip
It may be useful to distinguish between testing the validity of competing paradigms and testing hypotheses within a particular paradigm.
The latter forms the basic enquiry of most science and Popper's ideas on falsifiability fit right in there
Whereas Kuhn seems to me to address the difficulty of proof and disproof at a higher level of knowledge
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 1, 2007 3:29:03 GMT
I hope you use them often - the more you do the more they are happy to work with you- sit quietly in the garden or the bush and see who scampers on the edge of your vision,,,, and yes you will probably be unable to prove anything to anybody but who cares - it is your experience. Try asking them for help next time you try and light a fire on a windy day... and you have the right to complain to them if you cant find your trowel in the garden ... sshh... over here Whistler... I LOVE the elementals! Even when I was first introduced and received a warning, I remember thinking naahhh they are alright. Just recently I sent out an SOS to the watery element. Australia is into it's 6th year of drought and I am a very concerned gardener at present ... the very next day there was a torrential downpour that lasted 15mins over our property and a small surrounding area... the rest of the city remained dry. My husband rang to tell me while it was happening, he couldn't believe his eyes. Now in all seriousness I know it was just a coincidence, but somewhere down deep, in that secret chamber of the heart, there lingers a sneakly suspicion that I have friends in hidden places Tamrin/Wayseer, it pleases me to think these things ... just humour the old girl... Maat
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 1, 2007 3:33:50 GMT
Hmmmmm. Well, hmmmmm. I hear the elementals have an interesting sense of humor. And I've seen it in action. So, if they do like a good joke now an again, then they must be OK. For real villains seldom laugh from the heart
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 1, 2007 4:06:02 GMT
Bro. Maat asked:Tamrin/Wayseer, it pleases me to think these things ... just humour the old girl... OK—but please remember who started this thread!
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 1, 2007 5:32:18 GMT
Yep - and it looks like it was a good idea. Only started this morning and already 73 visits!
|
|