Paul Kandrah
02-28-2003, 12:01 AM
> I wonder,
> though, if perhaps this strong desire to work the
> "hard science" angle on transformation might be a
> little self-defeating.
> All of our paradigms,
> whether in hard science, philosophy, natural history,
> the soft sciences like psychology and economics and
> even art and literature, need to shift upwards too.
> I think it might serve science and ourselves
> better to give all ideas of how things work some
> consideration, even if they sound silly and
> "unscientific" or "non-technical".
> ~lesley
I understand your sentiment here Lesley, as often the words of
scientists are clothed in technical language that requires much fore
knowledge and strong visualization skills. The words that
scientists use to describe concepts are often necessary however, in
order to reduce the time required to communicate those concepts to
each other with efficiency. When somebody therefore comes along and
doesn't speak the jargon, it is an indication that it this person
will need some time just adjusting to the basics, long before he or
she will be able to add significantly to the present core
conversation. Think of entering a new job in a new field, and the
training required.
However, imo you are right to question this. So often that jargon
becomes the stuff that blinds. Scientists for the most part today
may be uncomfortable with some of these amazing new findings for the
very reason that it will require them to completely clean house, and
renew much of the learning they have accomplished through their
lives. They too will have to start over, and when you are already
way up there in a system that pays you and your family, this is
hard... not to mention the recoil that comes from a system of such
scientists.
Nature is nature. For instance, it is possible to watch the water
in a creek flow over a boulder and see in it a paradigm that fits
into many aspects of existence: the flow; the event of turbulence at
the constriction; renewing itself constantly, yet looking roughly
the same in each moment, yet never exactly the same; even going so
far as to think of the creek rising so the turbulence at that
boulder becomes insignificant in the new rush, being too low now in
the water; so that only the larger boulders, which previously were
too big for the water to flow over, become the new moment of
turbulence - the place where form comes about.
It is possible to look at such a scene and see the movement of the
universe within it. Then we could use these words to explain the
way the ether creates atoms, for instance, if it made sense. But
even then they are only words, and in the end will only take away
from the direct experience of understanding that came about.
Knowledge is a tool. The point of science was initially to create a
knowledge body that could provide the necessary understanding to
enable us in our endeavors, and dreams. The more accurate our
knowledge becomes the more powerful we are. But at the same time
once knowledge is gained it can also become a method of one-up-man-
ship over others.
That is why the work of David Wilcocks, among others, is so
wonderful. They have tried to assimilate the best knowledge that
has become available thus far, in a way that the average person may
be able to understand, or at least approach. These explanations are
not seamless, and most of us will not understand everything
immediately, but with time and a greater familiarity with the
concepts, a bridge can be made to general understanding.
The battle that must always be fought however - by each and every
one of us individually - is the threat of disinformation. While
knowledge is powerful, false knowledge can be destructive, or at the
very least limiting. This is after all perhaps the conundrum that
most scientists find themselves in presently. Therefore it IS
important to have a general agreement on the type of knowledge that
is offered, how rigorously it has been determined, and from what
mindset. That is what the scientific method is supposed to be
about.
It would be my suggestion that if it is difficult to understand a
certain concept that you feel may be important (such as sacred
geometry and music of the spheres, for instance) that you should
ask. Ultimately I believe that the final answers should be
extremely simple. If at that time they cannot be explained to an
open minded lay person, so that lay person can utilize the knowledge
themselves, then we will only circle around with new experts in new
castles fighting to keep the rest of us out.
When I came here, it was my hope that this forum was such a place of
assistance. It was my hope that we could help each other understand
this new knowledge, which has been chosen by David and Ra among
others because it may be important in the end. We are all people,
and worthy regardless of our present knowledge level. We will be
all connected in the end.
With respect,
Paul
> though, if perhaps this strong desire to work the
> "hard science" angle on transformation might be a
> little self-defeating.
> All of our paradigms,
> whether in hard science, philosophy, natural history,
> the soft sciences like psychology and economics and
> even art and literature, need to shift upwards too.
> I think it might serve science and ourselves
> better to give all ideas of how things work some
> consideration, even if they sound silly and
> "unscientific" or "non-technical".
> ~lesley
I understand your sentiment here Lesley, as often the words of
scientists are clothed in technical language that requires much fore
knowledge and strong visualization skills. The words that
scientists use to describe concepts are often necessary however, in
order to reduce the time required to communicate those concepts to
each other with efficiency. When somebody therefore comes along and
doesn't speak the jargon, it is an indication that it this person
will need some time just adjusting to the basics, long before he or
she will be able to add significantly to the present core
conversation. Think of entering a new job in a new field, and the
training required.
However, imo you are right to question this. So often that jargon
becomes the stuff that blinds. Scientists for the most part today
may be uncomfortable with some of these amazing new findings for the
very reason that it will require them to completely clean house, and
renew much of the learning they have accomplished through their
lives. They too will have to start over, and when you are already
way up there in a system that pays you and your family, this is
hard... not to mention the recoil that comes from a system of such
scientists.
Nature is nature. For instance, it is possible to watch the water
in a creek flow over a boulder and see in it a paradigm that fits
into many aspects of existence: the flow; the event of turbulence at
the constriction; renewing itself constantly, yet looking roughly
the same in each moment, yet never exactly the same; even going so
far as to think of the creek rising so the turbulence at that
boulder becomes insignificant in the new rush, being too low now in
the water; so that only the larger boulders, which previously were
too big for the water to flow over, become the new moment of
turbulence - the place where form comes about.
It is possible to look at such a scene and see the movement of the
universe within it. Then we could use these words to explain the
way the ether creates atoms, for instance, if it made sense. But
even then they are only words, and in the end will only take away
from the direct experience of understanding that came about.
Knowledge is a tool. The point of science was initially to create a
knowledge body that could provide the necessary understanding to
enable us in our endeavors, and dreams. The more accurate our
knowledge becomes the more powerful we are. But at the same time
once knowledge is gained it can also become a method of one-up-man-
ship over others.
That is why the work of David Wilcocks, among others, is so
wonderful. They have tried to assimilate the best knowledge that
has become available thus far, in a way that the average person may
be able to understand, or at least approach. These explanations are
not seamless, and most of us will not understand everything
immediately, but with time and a greater familiarity with the
concepts, a bridge can be made to general understanding.
The battle that must always be fought however - by each and every
one of us individually - is the threat of disinformation. While
knowledge is powerful, false knowledge can be destructive, or at the
very least limiting. This is after all perhaps the conundrum that
most scientists find themselves in presently. Therefore it IS
important to have a general agreement on the type of knowledge that
is offered, how rigorously it has been determined, and from what
mindset. That is what the scientific method is supposed to be
about.
It would be my suggestion that if it is difficult to understand a
certain concept that you feel may be important (such as sacred
geometry and music of the spheres, for instance) that you should
ask. Ultimately I believe that the final answers should be
extremely simple. If at that time they cannot be explained to an
open minded lay person, so that lay person can utilize the knowledge
themselves, then we will only circle around with new experts in new
castles fighting to keep the rest of us out.
When I came here, it was my hope that this forum was such a place of
assistance. It was my hope that we could help each other understand
this new knowledge, which has been chosen by David and Ra among
others because it may be important in the end. We are all people,
and worthy regardless of our present knowledge level. We will be
all connected in the end.
With respect,
Paul