I read some material of Joe Dispensa and some other of those guys. He's the guy from Ramtha and also 'starred' in the movie 'what the bleep do we know'. Many of the guys in that were in the scientific fields, and all fully qualified in their respective fields. Incidentally I'm not a 'Ramtha' buff. In fact I think J Z Knight is one hell of a freak show, but she earns good money at it!
It's all of these 'charlatans', as you rightly put it, that do give these ideas and theories a bad name.
The 'placebo' effect as we would call it in layman's terms, is what they would term neural pathways and neurological patterns, amongst other terms. That out 'thoughts' are a form of energy is also a scientific belief I am sure also. I did look into these matters to some extent over the last few years that they have been floating around, and I do believe there is some degree of truth in them.
Certain records
Present is required Would bet that more 1 dieting 2 lowering fat Even bad is the
They are not regarded as 'scientific' studies by the majority fo the 'scientific world' as i understand it, I think there is very much a divided community with regards to much of this material in the scientific realms.
But that is nothing new. It was the same back when Archimedes cried 'Eureka' over his displacement theories, when Galileo propounded his beliefs, when Newton declared his discoveries, and yup, even when Einstein declared many of his 'wacky' theories. Such is the world of science I guess.
Of course not everything in the field of science is an established fact with fully documented evidence, especially in the field of medicine. Many of the 'theories' of this still hail back to the days of Hippocrates, and are considered thus to be so, simply because Hippocrates declared them to be so, not because he has well documented evidence which has been handed down through the ages. My point with this being that many ancient 'beliefs' and ideologies are considered to be based upon 'knowledges' once known and understood, although I would happily concede that simply because some old dude said such and such 2 or 3 thousand years ago is hardly conclusive evidence of any facts, other than that he said it a long time ago!
I should point out that I am not convinced the LoA is quite the way that many of these new age bumpkins declare it to be, and I would not say that I am someone who is 100% sold on what these guys propagate. I have my own beliefs and understandings from a very different journey and from different observations and methods of study as these guys.
I agree with you that we have a duty to question these things, and I do agree that in the wrong hands or even 'minds' some of these 'theories' or ideas could/can be dangerous.
But the fundamentals of LoA are based upon the ideology that the whole of the world/universe as we know it is one massive ball of energy, where everything is interacting with everything else. The 'idea' that you could simply 'think' or even 'demand' vocally, XYZ, and the whole 'universe' would pul together just to make your wish come true is not entirely without foundation in any other realm or field. From the religious world, we have the bible declaring that 'God' is 'everywhere'. King David said he was in the highest heavens, the deepest seas and anywhere else he could thing of going to try and escape from him. St Paul said of God that' in Him we live and breath and have our being'.
Scientifically, the modern scientist have been discovering that there does indeed appear to be a 'something ness' which permeates throughout the whole universe, interweaving and inter connecting everything. String theory is just 'one' term which has been applied to this apparently observable phenomenon - as sort of explanation of the science of everything. Again, like they are, scientists are divided over the matter. That's simply because it's early days IMHO. History attests that this has been a consistent observable fact amongst the scientific community. When 'new' theories are proposed (or even old ones refound), scientists are divided until more becomes known, then slowly they all begin to align themselves and given enough time and studies to produce more conclusive facts.
My point with this whole debate, if you will, was more that these matters were certainly NOT 'new age'. They are only being 're-discovered' IMHO, and at least if ancient writings are anything to go by. Many of these matters are related in ancient documents and writings going back thousands of years, and I am not speaking simply of the bible here. In my opinion the bible is simply a rehashing of more ancient writings. the Laws of Hammurabi, The Gilgamish Epic, The Sumerian Tablets, all of these predate the bible but have similar themes and echoes, clearly indicating some fantastic knowledges amongst the ancients. The Sumerian Texts and artefacts apparently also indicate surgical procedures dating back at least 6,000 years!
I don't quite agree that it has been the 'spiritual' sector that have put the restraints on learning, but I would agree that it was the religious community, if that's what you really meant. It's certainly the terms I used earlier and in my book 'religious' and 'spiritual' are two very different things, even if the one does claim to have the divine right over the other! One is an internal personal experience and state of being, the other an outward show of extravagant and often times hypocritical behaviour.
留言列表
