Previous:« The Abusing Time, Children’s Philosophy, and Trees Post
Next:Turning Hilbert Spaces Discrete »
Dr. Wayne Dyer Makes Me Cry
Watching PBS tonight: “Dr. Wayne Dyer: The Power of Intention.” Holy moly bad stuff. Religion dressed up in authority soaked in pseudoscience. Use the word “energy” enough and people will believe anything you say. “Spirititual energy is the energy of abundance.” What does this even mean? So here is the real question. Why doesn’t the word Hamiltonian achieve as high a standing as energy? Or at least the Lagrangian, for gosh sake! And why no talk of the action. I mean that’s my favorite quantity, the action! No eigenvectors, no eignenvalues, no renormalization group. If you’re going to talk to me, and convince me of your self-help mumbo jumbo, you’d better be talking my launguage!
Related posts:
June 12th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Besides “energy”, there are some other terms that have crossed: “frequency”, “field”, and -I guess- “potential”. What do they have that “action” does not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 13th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Energy, potential and other “scientific” words are previous to science. Why must worry to us its use outside science?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 13th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Because Dr. Dyer is explicitly using them to pretend that there is science behind what he is saying. If he were using it, as say Sidney did in Def. Poesie, to express force of language back in 1581, then sure it would be fine. But he is not.
He can, of course, say what every he wants. I too can tell you that he is full of it and that he is using a simple argument by authority to boost up his vacuous claims.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
June 13th, 2006 at 9:19 am
“Dr. Dyer is explicitly using them to pretend that there is science behind what he is saying”
Sorry! I did not know it. (I live in Spain)
Dr. Dyer makes my cry, too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
June 13th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Doh! I should have made it clearer in my post!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 26th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
I looked at Wayne’s biograghy. He has 8 kids and at least 2 ex-wives. Does that sound like someone that has all the answers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
November 10th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
I love Wayne Dyer. He has helped thousands of people. I guess we’re all dopes. Have a great life!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 10th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
I’m happy he has helped people, but unhappy that he has to resort to using really silly methods to achieve this goal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
January 5th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Maybe silly, but I wonder how many people you helped using your ideals.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
January 25th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I find his stuff really confusing and contradictory. He talks about God, Jesus and reincarnation being the sources of our beggining. Science and Christianity are totally opposite teachings and he includes both of them in his theory..?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
January 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I have never been religious, and I’m aligned with you on science, but based on reading his books, I think you got the wrong impression of Dyer’s pitch.
First, his basis is Eastern philosophy not science. In fact, he points you to scientific references only for those who feel they need that to support the philosophy, but it’s really not part of his pitch.
Second, he’s not at all religiously dogmatic (which is why I like him). He points out that if you medidate to clear a path to your subconscious and picture things as you wish them to be, you will gravitate to make those things a reality. This is self-hypnosis in a nutshell. It’s well-observed and it does work, but whether or not that is based in human physiology or spirtualism doesn’t matter. He theorizes that there’s a source of spiritual energy, possibly the state you were in before birth and after death. We’re born thinking that we are “separated” from this state and he thinks we can tap into it. That’s philosophy not science and I’ve never seen him even suggest otherwise.
Unless you listened to his entire presentation from start to finish, you probably wouldn’t have tuned into this. It’s much clearer in his books.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
February 5th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I have not listened to the entire presentation so you are probably right about where his teachings are based but I didn’t get it anyway.. I just got very frustrated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 10th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Dyer will not appeal to everyone, but he doesn’t intend to include any science, in case that is what frustrated you. Spiritual “energy” isn’t a physics connotation, it would refer to more of an energy you might feel as part of loving someone or a “connection” you might feel in a very close friendship, more like emotional energy. Energy might be a poor choice of words for him because he didn’t mean to suggest that we’re talking about science in the context of energy vs. matter.
Purely from age-old philosophy and empircal observation, he postulates that corporeal life is a state, and that death is another state, but that our spirit doesn’t end, it just changes states. The non-corporeal state is a spiritual energy — here’s probably where it sounds like science, but that’s a misunderstanding. He goes on to say that this spirit is like a lake, a source, from which we came and where we go, and that the main problems on Earth stem from the fact that so many believe we’re separated from that “source” while we’re living. Now you’re probably saying: “Hey, how does he or anyone else know that?”
He never claims to know it or have any proof. It’s pure faith based on observation and he does not claim to have any scientific proof.
For example, I can look at the miracle of our body’s make-up, particularly our ability to reason in the abstract and this looks to me as if there was intelligent design because it does not seem reasonable to me that it’s coincidence. But, I’ll be the first to admit that is purely speculation and common sense and there’s no science to it. Philosophy is about reason and common sense, drawing conclusions from what appears to be but it’s not science.
What’s so frustrating to you about that other than a poor choice of words?
He just says that many organized religions were based on these same philosophies, but he never endorses a single one. He uses the writings of Buddhism, just as much as not more than of any other organized religion and actually tries to cut through the dogma and get down to the common philosophies. That seems so reasonable to me.
What I find frustrating about Dyer and others like him is that he presents his material as if he’s certain he knows its truth and I agree that he should be more careful to make it sound like one possible answer rather than suggesting he knows “the” answer. I don’t think he intends to do this, something is lost when you’re giving a lecture and trying to debate your point of view. He should be more humble about that in my opinion.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
March 4th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Dr. Dyer is not only preaching to you a false philosophy of life, but one that will in the end prove to be a dead end. There is nothing positive in what he is saying, nothing of value. I realize that what I am now going to say will sound to many of you just as ridiculous, but test these things, and see if they are not so.
Dr. Dyer asserts that we can somehow muster within ourselves positive energy drawn from and sustained by a connection with “The Source” It is in this manner that we partake and indeed become a divine nature. Now, contrast this with what the Bible, hold with me for a minute, has to say about where we come from, why we are here, and what we must do to find a connection to “The Source”
Acts 17:22-31
22So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28for
“‘In him we live and move and have our being’
as even some of your own poets have said,
“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’
29Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
I understand that this probably sounds like a bunch of hooey to many of you, but when it comes down to it, it is the testimony of one man, Paul, against another. The viewpoints are in direct opposition to one another and both make claims to be the truth. I only ask that you consider what the Bible has to say against the “enlightened” doctrine of Dr. Dyer. In the manner of Paul I tell you that Dr. Dyer is very religious, but he does not know the only true God, the only true “source.” The divine being is not an image formed by the art or imagination of man.
It is to God, who gave us life and breath and everything, that we will be ultimately accountable to at the end of our lives. And it is through his son Jesus that we find forgiveness for our sins, and escape from the wrath of God.
If you feel that you are experiencing “negative energy” in your life, it may well be that you are living under the wrath of God that Paul speaks of in the book of Romans. Because he is holy, he commands that we be holy. We all know that this is not possible. Is it not obvious that we are depraved in so many ways within our hearts and minds?? Is it not true that in your own life you must deal with wrong thoughts and motives against others? This is not negative energy, but is sin. The cure is not to be connected with a glowing metaphysical “source” but to turn to Christ to heal you. The Bible says in 1 John that if we confess our sins, God is faithful to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us of all unrighteousness. This is the only way to obtain peace in this life. All other methods will fail when you begin to realize that you can never get rid of the sin that prevades our minds and hearts. We need forgiveness and reconciliation to God, not “positive energy” from within ourselves.
I say with the prophet David,
“Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good. Blessed is the man that takes refuge in him!”
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
March 5th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Both could be wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 8th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
It is amazing how so many people will stand up and use the Bible as the basis for why someone is preaching a “false philosophy”. They stand up and use it like it is some well known truth that can’t be disputed.
If you listen closely to what Wayne Dyer talks about, it all comes down to the power of thought and how the energy of thought creates the world we live in.
I personally have seen this concept work in mine and others lives.
I’m not someone who professes to know the ultimate truth but it drives me crazy when I see comments, like the one above, where someone starts preaching religous Dogma to prove a point like this. I can “cherry pick” the bible just like the respone above and show exactly why Wayne Dyer is onto something.
The Power of thought does change peoples lives and can be scientifically proven to show change in body chemistry and health.
That, to me, is energy in action.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
March 11th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
KP, thanks for your comments. Could you please explain a few ideas within your post so I can be sure I’m understanding correctly? Thank you.
1. Why are you standing up and using science like it is some well known truth that can’t be disputed?
2. I have seen the power of Christ and the forgiveness of God work in my life and others as well. This being the case, stating that the philosophy of Dr. Dyer works in your life does not negate the Biblical testimony.
3. Why is it that you have chosen to criticize my use of religious dogma with dogma of your own?
“The Power of thought does change people’s lives and can be scientifically proven to show change in body chemistry and health.”
I have no problems with you speaking dogmatically, I’m just trying to figure out which kind you deem acceptable.
4. Please show me how what I have done in regard to the Bible quotation is “cherry-picking”, and please demonstrate how Dr. Dyer is onto something based on this Biblical hermeneutic.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
March 12th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
in regards to the two folks arguing about wayne and the bible…
if everyone would read his books cover to cover and keep an open mind, they would see that both dr. dyers’ books and the bible actually compliment each other and prove each other to be true!!
folks who practice the old time religeon will claim dyer is a sinner and tells lies. but dyer is guilty of no evil…if anything, he teaches us how to live life more christ-like!!
if you read the bible, jesus teaches the same doctrines just different phrasing. people couldn’t handle his teachings either which led to his crucifixion!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 13th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Tim,
I can see right where this conversation can go and I don’t think this is the right forum for this discussion. To keep this blog on track I apologize for being so antagonistic. I would be happy to discuss with you where I’m coming from and answer your questions in another forum.
With that said, I will get back to what this blog is about. Again it is the power of thought, believing, and creating the energy that makes things happen. Whether one chooses to believe that the power of Christ is responsible for creating that abundance in ones life or one believes he can pull from a field of energy, it doesn’t really matter. Both approaches can achieve what Wayne Dyer calls “creating an energy of abundance”. Jesus most certainly had very good teachings and I believe he did understand how to pull from this energy source. It is the way man has wrapped his own version around Jesus’ story I find hard to deal with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 15th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Greg,
You are certainly right in saying that Jesus’ crucifixion was the result of people hearing things they couldn’t bear. However, what Jesus taught was nothing like what Dr. Dyer is saying. The fundamental difference is this: Dyer says to pull from the source, and Jesus claimed to be the source, hence the “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” statement, among many others that he made concerning his exclusivity. The ends to which these two teachers point us are radically different from one another. In the earlier posts I was taking issue with Dyer because I believe that he is pointing people to an inadequate source, namely themselves. It’s certainly not wrong for him to want to help people, and thinking positively is no evil. In fact, it is very beneficial as KP has already stated, but thinking positively is not the end that will give you lasting peace, meaning in life, freedom from guilt(not just the feeling of it), and the ability to truly love your neighbor as Jesus commanded that we do. According to what he taught, we must be given a new heart which comes by grace through faith in who Jesus is and what he did. I too apologize if I came off too strongly to anyone in the first post, but being this was my conviction I felt I had to say something. If you do not agree with me, I won’t hold it against you, but I will take issue with the notion that these two veins of teaching can be reconciled.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 18th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Dyer walks around up there on stage bitting his lip, pushing up against his teeth with his tongue, pulling this stuff out from his nether region, and then ladles some Sufi white sauce on it, and garnishes it with a sprinkling of Buddhism.
If you want the real thing go to Japan and join a monastery. If you ask the meditation master to help you connect with the source energy, he’ll wack you with a stick and tell you to go scrub the kitchen floor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 20th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Attitude and close-mind are the kind of negative energy Dr. Dyer talks about that we need to move away from. Having a defensive attitude will not allow to see or listen others people’s ideas. If you want to see how powerful the mind is to create energy, you just need to look over a background of any successful profesional athlete such as Lance Armstrong. His powerful will and positive attitude help him to overcome illness and won 7 tours of France.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
March 21st, 2007 at 8:15 am
Medicine also helped.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 21st, 2007 at 8:33 am
I watched Dr. Dyer yesterday on PBS, and I was moved. He reconciled many faiths by finding similarities between different tenets and ideas, and in a time like ours, where religion is such a cause for debate and hate, I was very impressed with Dr. Dyer’s open pluck.
Also, as PH says, Dyer is talking about philosophy, it’s not religion.
Finally, if you wish to agree or disagree it is your choice, but I don’t feel like people should discredit him just because they don’t understand his ‘language’, because believe it or not, I felt every word he said. Maybe I’m weird, or maybe I just get him…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 21st, 2007 at 8:37 am
Also, for those who think Dr. Dyer is posing as a prophet, first and foremost, he never claimed to be one.
Just because he is confident in his teachings, and that some people agree with him doesn’t mean that he suggests to have all of the answers.
He is just a man speaking out on what he has learned through his life, and regardless of what you think of his teachings, just because he has 8 kids and two ex-wives doesn’t mean that he is any less credible, it just means he’s human and goes through troubles just like the next person.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 21st, 2007 at 8:40 am
It’s also okay to believe in different faiths all at once.
For example, believe it or not, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all connected to some degree in theory, the differences are in the way people interpret their respective faiths. That doesn’t mean that the faiths themselves are faulty, but that in fact, it is up to us, as followers of faiths, if we are indeed, followers of any faith, to interpret each faith as we see fit, without hurting others who have the same right to follow whichever faith.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 21st, 2007 at 8:52 am
Don’t forget athiesm, agnosticism, buddhism, taoism, hinduism, chinese folk religion, sikhism, juche, bahai faith, jainism, shinto, cao dai, pagan, tenrikyo and aftrican tradidional religions. Can they all be right?
“The stage is too big for the drama.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 21st, 2007 at 10:15 am
Truth is exclusive by nature, therefore they most certainly cannot all be true at the same time, since each makes an absolute truth claim sooner or later. Certain religions may have terminology that is related, but beyond that, they differ greatly from one another. This is especially true of Christianity when set next to any other faith.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 21st, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Dave,
After reading your first comment in this blog, it doesn’t surprise me to see why you would question someone like Wayne Dyer and believe what he has to say is nothing more then “Mumbo Jumbo”. The first time I heard him I was also skeptical. I can only imagine that after all the schooling you have had and your work in Quantum physics, I’ve read your Bio and it is quite impressive, that you are either an Atheist or Agnostic by now. Doesn’t really matter but people with your back ground typically go down one of those paths. What I can tell you though is that you will get to a point in your life and you will wonder what this life is all about. You probably have already reached that point. Regardless, with your back ground in Quantum Physics aren’t you struck with amazement how unless there is an observer in this reality, reality becomes …. Exactly, becomes what?
I don’t have near the knowledge you have in Quantum physics but what I have learned about it is what made me really look for “What is this life all about?” You can probably tell from my previous post, I don’t think very highly of the popular organized religions. I don’t believe Wayne Dyer knows all the truth either but I can say assuredly, the power of positive thought and knowing that something will happen, whether one believes that this is pulling from some source like some people believe, or it’s something else entirely, really does work. If he wants to call it “energy of abundance”, fine with me. I just know it works. I do meditate and actively focus on what I want in my life. Since I started doing this, things happen in my life on a regular basis that most people would never believe. I guess what I’m trying to say is if you can get beyond the “mumbo jumbo”, there really is something there.
By the way, how do you ever find time to right on all these blogs? I see you are an avid skier, as I am myself. You should do yourself a favor. Stop typing and go skiing!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 am
Hey KP,
The role of the observor in quantum physics is a very interesting subject. But I’m affraid that it is one issue that has been more often been mutalated into something very strange by mainstream “spiritualists”. Indeed, consider your statements about positive thinking and the role of the observor. One interpretation of the role of quantum physics is that an observor can “influence” reality. But this actually is just as true in classical physics as it is in quantum physics (an example for the experts: contextual theories are easy to create by just assuming that classical information about what is being observed affects the information being observed)! So you don’t need quantum physics to justify the belief that you, as some crazy strange entity in this universe, have an impact on shaping how the rest of the universe acts. And this is the kind of thing I was sort of what I was aluding to in my post: many people, try to dress up their discussions of “ways to live” by a bunch of mumbo jumbo talk which often uses the vocabulary of science and physics in particular. And from a scientists perspective this seems often seems really kind of comical because it is pretty clear that they don’t understand the science they are discussing. Now I don’t spend much of my time listening to Dr. Dryer, but his use of the word energy is funny bording on nonsensical to most scientists.
Now, all of this is not to say that I don’t disagree with you that positive thinking isn’t probably something imporant for how you live your life. Someday I think we may even understand why this is so! But I don’t think you need to appeal to physics to justify this. I think you can appeal to the wisdom of many who have taken this path, to a sense of what you think is moral and clear in this world, and to examples and counterexamples you might witness in your own life. But these things aren’t within the relm of science…yet!
And yes, indeed I should be spending less time typing and more time skiing!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Dave,
First thanks for writing back. I am still trying to understand your example of “Contextual theories”. I’ve looked up a bit of information on it but still trying to grasp what it means. I’ll have to study it a little more.
Anyway, you are right about mainstream “Spiritualists” grabbing on to their interpretation of what this so called “Energy of Abundance” is and trying to back up their claim by interjecting terms from science to give it validity. I think this is more down the roads of philosophy then a religion and how much truth there really is to this has only been measured by what people perceive to be a truth. I started listening to him and others that were touting the same ideals and began to see a lot of what I call good “Moral Truths” intertwined with pseudoscience. This is a great recipe for capturing a hungry audience that wants to understand why we are here. The crazy thing is that when you really do get into this calm state and focusing on what you want and do it from a an unselfish position, it almost seems magical how the right things in your life start happening to fulfill your dreams. What I would like to see is some real science behind this. I could never prove that I’m pulling from some “higher source” or “energy” but with the type of work you do, you might be able to make sense of this one day. I am very interested in real science producing experiments and getting results that explain this strange world we live in.
Again, thanks for your post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 26th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
After reading all the posts, I am inclined to say a few things.
First of all…it does not matter what your faith is. I have met some Christians who do not act or speak in any way shape or form in a Christ-like manner. I have met Buddhists who do aknowledge and respect the teaching of Christ. I have met Hindu’s who have taught me a great deal about connecting to my source. With any religion, it is doctrine…thought form. you take from it what you feel is your truth. It does not matter what path we take….we are all led to the same source. There is no religion that is the “whole truth”. Meaning that they are not complete.
Wayne Dyer is universal in his teachings and this is refreshing. I see no harm in his thoughts or actions. We live in a world that is chaotic. Things need to change. Dogma has not helped. Spituality is all about understanding that the inner peace is within…and it is not something you can find…because it is already there. It just takes a little “re-membering” to bring us back to who and why we are here.
There is a divine paln and it is happening right on schedule. There is a universal intelligence that does not make mistakes. Call it God, call it energy, call it whatever you feel comfortable with, or what you feel is your truth. There is no right or wrong. The greatest teachers and masters that have walked this earth have tried to tell us this. But our huge human ego’s think we have to change it to fit whatever doctrine we feel that will ultimately control the masses. There always seems to be someone/some way who/it has to be right and making others wrong wehter this be in a belief system or what you decide to watch on TV.
Also, I am not comfortable AT ALL with naysayers who have to debate issues with quoting scripture.
Speak from your heart. If you don’t like watching Dr. Wayne Dyer…your TV set has on OFF button.
We are connected from and by the same source. So many beings feel they have to be better than others. There is no need for this. This planet is in dire need of a global transformation.
I applaude the Wayne Dyer’s of the world….because it is their positive outlook, their shared trial and tribulations that bring us to the understanding that we are all ONE on this planet…and for that matter with the Universe.
May we all find peace and love in our hearts.
Namaste.
“We must be the change we want to see in the World”
~Gandhi~
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 27th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
I gather then, angelessence, that you believe there is no such thing as absolute truth?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Dyer’s ideas really bring good results, peace and content. This and nothing else matters.
Enjoy your lives on Earth while you have them, and do not engage in foolish disputes.
Greetings from a successful follower
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Some believe that there is more to life than peace and content. Further if a belief system tells you things that make you happy but also are untrue and keep others from being happy is that okay?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 1st, 2007 at 4:26 am
1.What is more than peace and content ?
2.What is not true in Dyer’s ideas ?
3.What do you mean by keeping others from being happy ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 1st, 2007 at 8:04 am
1. Strife. Suffering. Famine. Desire. Progress. Evolution. Change.
2. “Spirititual energy is the energy of abundance.” What, persay, is “spirtual energy?” I’m fine with just thinking that this is metaphorical, but it certainly doesn’t fall into the relm of things we can experiment about. (Of course my definition of true is very different, probably, than most others definitions of true!)
3. Some belief systems impose their view of the world upon others. For example, you might believe that peace and contentment are the end goal of life. I however don’t find this true and find that there is more to be gained in a robust society which is not content with its place in the universe. Certainly one could say, “fine let us just get along” but I am part of a community and this community makes me larger and if this community is content, then I am at a loss.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 24th, 2007 at 10:47 am
The issues that people have who do not care for writers, speakers, or leaders such as Wayne Dyer is that they are looking for concrete “double blind” proof before they will believe.
This limits the mind. It separates science from the rest of life. The real truth is that what we are really talking about here is low minded scientist (or people who would like to think of themselves as scientist). High minded scientist already recognize that the universe can not be contained in a labratory (Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, the “Copenhagen Interpretation”, Non linear dynamics, fractal geometry, chaos theory, super string theory).
Wayne Dyer’s message falls on deaf ears to these low minded “scientist” because there frame of reference has no way to comprehend what does not occur in a linear fashion, which “spiritual enery” certainly does not occur in linear ego time. It operates on the real level of the non-linear.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 28th, 2007 at 12:56 am
If the thoughts that you created were positive (including the ones on this website) you may have had a chance to see underneath your words into the “energy” you seek. However with the quantum physics mentality you readily deny yourself the exsistance of things you cannot see.
As your picture shows you skiing over the cliff, the moment you at your happiness, as so the power of your thought. Just some of us choose to be more content at all times than just a given few in the snow. As all of us, you have much to learn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 28th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Yep that “quantum physics mentality” is horrible stuff. You know science and all that junk just gets in the way of getting high.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 28th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Ah yes, “linear ego time.” Such BS. “Non linear dynamics, fractal geometry, chaos theory, super string theory.” Look! Big words!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 30th, 2007 at 7:16 am
You have every right to ridicule what you deem “big words.” In fact, this writer would expect no more of a skeptic. The question remains though, what word is big? Dynamics? Geometry? Non linear?
Your retort to the position laid out by this writer previously, however, is less than complete. Your response only illustrates the intellectual immaturity that my post discusses. Those who don’t understand concepts that they are unable or unwilling to learn (because of their proud positions) have the same response as a wise ass ten year old, who assumes he knows everything, but in fact, (as everybody around him recognizes) knows nothing. But to point out to the little brat his error, is a waste of time.
Furthermore, this writer takes issue with David O. In my estimation it is not a “Quantum Physics Mentality” that limits Dave Bacon, in fact, this autor would propose that is quite the opposite; it is a lack of “Quantum Perspective,” not an overabundance that is limiting Dave Bacon. Just because Dave Bacon purports to “Quantum Mechanics,” does not mean he understands the minds of Niels Bohr or Werner Heisenberg. It is, in fact, this author’s proposition that Dave Bacon claims a “Quantum Philosophy,” but instead lives a “Newtonian Mechanical” existence. However, his claim to be the “Quantum Pontiff” does demonstrate his potential for growth.
“If any man has ears to hear, let him hear” Jesus Christ – The Gospel According to Mark Chapter 4
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 30th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Dave, you call “linear ego time” BS – yet you have written a book review on the subject of Kurt Gobel? Do you really understand or do you just like the idea of being smart?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 30th, 2007 at 8:02 am
MC: you must have me mistaken with someone else. I’ve never written a book review on Kurt Gobel. Perhaps you mean Kurt Godel? And I never claimed to be smart, that was you lecturing me, not the other way around. But thanks for calling me a low minded scientist!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 30th, 2007 at 8:12 am
I apologize for the error. In the future I will attempt to be more accurate. I further apologize for the “lecture.” I am sure that you, and the readers of this blog, are quite fine without the disturbances of my vain opinions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 30th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Don’t apologize for sharing your view! While I certainly disagree with the majority of comments ont his post, I certainly think having the comments here is worthwhile. I do worry however that this post comes up on the first page on Googling “Dr. Wayne Dryer” I have nor real animosity towards the fellah, just that his particular brand of self-help/spirituality isn’t my cup of tea. And my original intention in the post was to be funny to the group that reads this blog, mostly theoretical physists. To us it is rather amusing/anoying that a large class of self-help/spiritual speakers have coopted words for their own totally out of context use. Metaphor is fine, but out of context metaphor to boost your authority is (IMHO, of course) just silly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 30th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Fair enough Dave; to clarify I haven’t read any Wayne Dyer, I was googling his name to find out about him and this site was on the first or second page. I was apologizing not for expressing myself, but for the vanity that “I was right and you were wrong.”
The frustration I was expressing is the perception that I have about “Theoretical Physicist”…mainly that they “know about” the mechanics of the universe and yet cannot appreciate the wisdom literature (Gospels, Lao Tzu, Zen Buddhism, Vedas, Meister Eckhardt). In fact it amazes me that men who could understand such magnificent and beautiful concepts could ridicule the “spiritual” nature of existence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 30th, 2007 at 9:00 am
I do find appealing many of the thoughts and feelings about how to live life that are present in what you call the wisdom literature. On the other hand, I have little use for mysticism or claims to authority in this literature. And I don’t find much use at all crossing between the boundaries of physics and the boundaries of human concerns except in so much as the later better not conflict with the former. So mostly it is probably this later view which gets me into trouble!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 30th, 2007 at 9:03 am
I probably get in to trouble with my need to eliminate boundaries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 4th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Dr. Dyer is a member of humanity. As is anyone reading or responding to this post. He has no answers only ideas, which is all any of us have. We are all part of humanity, none greater, none less, regardless of the “weight” we give our ideas. If we take anything from religions teachings take that in and of themselves they mean little. If I am a buddist, does your believe change mine. Have I found any great truth that grants me autonomy over non-beleivers. And what if I was a Christian, would I know be greater than you, would my knew found relationship now mean that from a sinlge notion, my soul is more valuable than yours. Or would my embracing Islam bring me closer to bliss. Would it grant me the peace that all other religions lack. It couldn’t possibly. We were none of these things in the womb. We are none of these things now. We are. We are humans. Our humanity is that of joined experience. Though different we may be do you not expereince life? Emotion? Do you not have ideas of pain, joy, achievment? Dr. Dyer is simple sharing what HIS insight has for those who are open to embrace it. He another member of humanity, as are you. How about sharing your innsight with us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 7th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Dr. Dyer is yet another in the short history of man trying to build a new Tower of Babel. Rather than a physical tower, he thinks we can reach the heavens by using this “source”. Tim is correct, the source is Jesus Christ and we must go through Him to reach heaven and get back to our Father. Dr. Dyer uses slight deviations from the truth to mislead people into believing they control their destiny, the same slight deviation that Satan used in the garden to decieve Eve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 11th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I agree as Tim noted, …the source is Jesus Christ and we must go through Him to reach heaven and get back to our Father.” I also believe that Dr. Dyer opens up the hearts of thousands to this way of thinking and doing thus it potentially leads many to find Jesus Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 11th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Ah quite the gammit. From Dr. Dyer as the path towards Jesus Christ, to Dr. Dyer as the path towards Satan, to Dr. Dryer as just another guy sharing his experience, to Dr. Dyer as an exploiter of science, to Dr. Dyer the bringer of peace and contentment, to Dr. Dyer as Budha-lite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 12th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Maybe…instead of “pontificating” on Dr. Dyer and his “message” and “motivation”, we should go outside and fall in a river and be mad at ourselves when the water is cold.
“We’ve all been waitin’, wonderin’, will we ever know the truth?”
http://www.livewidespreadpanic.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 14th, 2007 at 2:37 am
Energy: a capacity for acting or being active that is within a person.
Many people can’t help but look at the world from one specific entrenched perspective. So now we have a message board illustrating this point.
Aren’t all perspectives limiting? Wouldn’t you rather understand than be correct!
Indeed, why must the Dave Bacons of the world ridicule that which they need most dearly?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 14th, 2007 at 7:01 am
I ain’t ridiculing what they need (which apparently, according to your perspective, is “understanding”), I was, way way way way back at the top of this page, in my post, pointing out exactly that the word energy has many different meanings, but that it is funny that other words which scientists used, you know, the ones not a single person in this ebntire thread has commented on except Wim at the very top, have not been coopted to the same extent.
But to your other point (see no one wants to talk with me about the use of the renormalization group in spirtiual conversations), I think some perspectives are more limiting that others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 15th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Hehehe. Well, when you asked why the terms Hamiltonian and Lagrangian have not been coopted by the masses, I assumed you were being facetious. Every field has its terminology. That does not mean that the terminology is useful or descriptive. When you suggest that I am off-topic, perhaps you are just trying to protect yourself from truly thinking about what I’m saying. When people have the attitude that they completely understand something, they are no longer open to learning. Yes, Dave Bacon, I am suggesting here that you are ridiculing spiritual definitions of energy and clinging to your own (limiting) scientific definition so that you won’t have to think about something that might challenge your world-view.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 15th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Every human being is looking for something. When you find Jesus, you find everything you have ever wanted. Try Him, just speak to Him wherever you are and ask Him to reveal Himself to you, then you will know the truth (Jesus) and the truth will set you free from all this searching. “I am the way, the truth and the life.” Jesus said. He did not speak of truth, He is truth itself. And just before you jump on me for bringing in religion, there was not a religious born in Jesus Christ, that is a man-made thing. He came as the king and taught about the Kingdom. He spoke also about the Wayne Dyers of this world, (And I do not hate Wayne, it is not Christ-like to do so) Here is what Jesus said of all like him ”
The Apostle Peter warns 2 Pt. 2:1-3: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.”
“There will also be false teachers among you.” false teachers can be very effective communicators; they can have a personal magnetism. They use smooth and flattering speech to bring you into their bondage; they present their teaching cleverly, very smoothly.
If you are a Christian, Christ said to beware of false teachers like these. Pray for discernment of the Holy Spirit that dwells in you. If you are not a christian, don’t just blow me off, ask Christ to reveal Himself to you so you can make an informend decision. Now you know and you cannot unknow the truth. God says “I am God, I change not.” We have made God out to be different things, if you disagree, check with God’s word in the King James Version Bible and know that anything that exalts itself above the knowledge of God is to be cast down. What Wayne Dyer is proffessing is not scriptural. That is what is wrong with it, it leads people to another source which is self when only God is our source. We must not exalt ourselves above God. Thanks and be blessed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 17th, 2007 at 7:19 am
dr. wayne speaks the same truth jesus spoke… and runs into the same pharisees jesus ran into… if you had ears to hear, you’d hear the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 18th, 2007 at 8:32 am
I have no problem being told I am close minded with regard to spiritual definitions. It is true! I also don’t think it is bad, however, which is where we certainly differ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 20th, 2007 at 12:52 am
If you want to see then open eyes are necessary. If you want to understand then an open mind is necessary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 20th, 2007 at 12:58 am
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain with themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. –Bertrand Russell
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
June 28th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I listened to this guy lecture and it was the most worthless rambling I have ever heard.
No specifics, just generalizations and no structure or message. I some it up as think positive thoughts and something positive will happpen. Whup tee Do!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 1st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
For people who are sold on the worldly teachings and are not willing to hear the absolute truth of Jesus, that is ok you can skip this post, on judgement day you will answer to Him. To those who are Christians and have not realized what is wrong with teachings like Wayne Dyers’ hang with me for a few minutes. I listened to his TV presentations especially power of intention more than twelve times a few years ago and read several of his books cover to cover and loved them until I decided to read the bible cover to cover and learn to walk with the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Then i realized how his theories fall under false teachings.
Dyer in his teachings draws alot from the teachings of Yogananda who after he graduated from Calcutta University in 1915, took formal vows as a monk of India’s venerable monastic Swami Order, at which time he received the name Yogananda. If you are a Christian, know this has nothing to do with Christ.
Dyer also is an avid reader of and pulls from the Hindu sacred text which is presented as transcendental knowledge of the most profound spiritual nature as revealed in the Bhagavad – Gita. It is the divine discourse spoken by the Supreme Lord Krishna Himself and is the most popular and well known of all the sacred scriptures from ancient India. Always being revered as a true source of spiritual knowledge. while as Christians, we believe in the bible as the incorruptible, indestructible, ever-living word of God so if you profess Christ as your Lord, you don’t want to be mixed up with these subtle teachings of other ‘lords’ like lord Krishna
Dyer also quotes Sufi principles. Sufism or tasawwuf, as it is called in Arabic, is generally understood by scholars and Sufis to be the inner, mystical, or psycho-spiritual dimension of Islam. If you are a Christian brother or sister, I appeal to you to not be seduced by these seemingly good and useful teachings. They teach you to depend on yourself and makes God unnecesary. They do not teach you the gospel truth of Jesus Christ the son of the most high God. The only reason teachers like this mention Jesus is sow it is appealing to Christ’s followers who may be ignorant of God’s view.
Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge”
Proverbs 9:8 “Never correct conceited people, they will hate you for it. But if you correct the wise, they will respect you.”
Proverbs 3:5-7 “Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and turn away from evil.”
Proverbs 14:12 “What you think is the right road may lead to death.
If you are a Christian, just as you read Wayne Dyers books cover to cover, curl up with a bible and read it cover to cover and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. For only the truth you KNOW will set you free. If you have ears, hear what the Lord is saying.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 5th, 2007 at 8:27 am
I think you are all exactly where you need to be as I am as well and so is Wayne. I personally find him most inspirational and a wonderful spirit who has found his purpose here and is living to serve. Look for the good and that is what you shall see. Look for the bad and you shall see that too.
-Stacy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 10th, 2007 at 8:58 am
You all missed the point again. It’s all about Morality. Each person has a spark of being Divine inside themselves. That spark (spirit)
makes all of us on planet earth in the same boat.
Therefore, being created by the same source we should love each other (that is love your neighbor as yourselves) and love the God that created that spirit from the beginning. That God is Yahweh ( Jehovah )! It has nothing to do with science. Thanks, Mike
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 10th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Never trust anyone with a Dr. before their name.
— Dr. Dave Bacon
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 11th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Just when an interesting discussion is threatening to break out, people come flying in with quotes from the friggin bible. Maybe the point of the story of jeebus is that people should keep an open mind, and not crucify those that put forth ideas that don’t fit into some accepted ideology. After all, jeebus himself didn’t quote the bible in his teachings. Why should you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 11th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I have just published an article on my blog site called “Finding God With Wayne Dyer” about his recent book The Power of Intention and his descent from fairly sound self-help into Snake Oil salesmanship and the peddling of religious mumbo-jumbo. Here is a link
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 12th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Interesting debates. It appears to me the Dr. Dyer is encouraging us all to re-associate/connect with our Source (remember the example of the apple slice originating from the apple pie so it must be apple pie…I hope you imagine your Source to be more expansive, infinite than apple pie…but if you don’t, OK..be free to be).
In reference to all major religions, they all seem to have as many variations in perspective as there are different types of vehicles. I don’t think any “religion” has a hold on all truth. HOWEVER, I believe Truth exists and is best observed in an individual who is free to be with out self-condemnation, self-defamation, self-exaltation, etc. or need for un-loving judgement or demeaning of others.
If you believe in God’s sovereignty (infinite intelligence) and the Spirit of God residing in each individual, then it may not be a stretch for some to “believe” God perfectly capable of stringing a series of words and incidents together through various sources which reflect that Spirit. If we believe God infinite, then it is quite odd for some to try to condense that essence into one person. The Bible contains a lot of the pertinent things Christ said but by God I think Christ still speaks and He does so through many individuals who are of His essence whether they acknowledge it or not (It’s the Bible who says who are we to judge whether the Potter choses some pottery for honor and some for dishonor (dishonor versus honor may be used because our thinking consistently thinks of everything as good OR bad).
Just one scripture group that may help express what Dyer and Tolle and others may be trying to say. Those living in Spirit and Truth but don’t acknowledge it as Christ… Romans 2:14-16 (Apostly Paul speaking)
14: For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show (Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, according to my gospel, (AB)God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
It’s the Spirit of Christ that these speakers are re-connecting too and they are so excited. The words of man are limited in their ability to fully disclose/describe/define this state but ALAS we all try. Thank God for scientists, philosophers, prophets, teachers who have experienced the freedom of operating according to divine purpose. You know Truth when you hear it. EGO wants to destroy it or alter it, Spirit wants to embrace it as it is. OK, next… Blessings to you all as you seek the Truth that sets you free. FreetoBe
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 14th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Stopped watches are right twice a day. There ought to be empirical support for a position before relying on it. Dyer went like Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale from being right to being richer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 20th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
A few points:
1. The person that pointed out above that Dr. Dyer’s main flaw is that he presents his ideas as “truth” and not as opinion I think really gets to the heart of the problem with his lectures. If we cannot not back something up with reason, then we might as well believe anything that someone says. That does not mean reason can prove everything, but I do not see the point is accepting just any idea because of reasons’ shortcomings. It’s our best defense against non-truth.
2. Science as a basis for an argument cannot be compared to using the bible as a basis. Religion claims truth rather than seeks it. It is not self-correcting when it gets something wrong. When wrong, the religious defend their position rather than change. Science, by definition, constantly challenges itself and when wrong changes its position. Science has been right far more than religion ever has. Religion would still have the earth flat, at the center of the universe, and the sun revolving around us rather than the other way around. Religion has a long history of fearing what science has proven.
Finally, Dr. Dyer once wrote that authority deserves to be questioned. However, if you read his writings closely he does not like to be challenged when that authority is him. He likes to be skeptical of conventional thinking, but in the same breath derides skepticism of his ideas as “low energy” rather than address the challenges.
He once wrote that ESP was more than coincidence because he asked a group of students to raise their hands if they ever had the experience of that while thinking of someone that someone suddenly called. A majority raised their hands. And that was enough for him to draw a conclusion. However, if he would have asked those same students to “raise your hand if you’ve ever thought of someone and they didn’t call you while you were thinking of them,” it would have probably contradicted his conclusion. But that is how he operates. He never really addresses challenges except for the occasional off-putting remarks such as “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Or claiming that someone is just too bound to their “Earth Guide Only” (EGO).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 20th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
By the way, on a personal note so you know where my comments above are coming from, I have read every book (all of them more than once) Dyer has put out since 1976, and have listened to every lecture he has recorded. When I was 19 I believed what he wrote. Now with 30 more years of life under my belt, I realize how wrong he is and has been in so much of what he claims. His basic tenet in his philosophy of “what you think about, you become” has not proven in my life or the majority of others I know. For many years I thought this was true, but the fact is you can put many years into something only to get “experience.” (I guess he would argue that I did get something and that there really is no “failure.” But that is basically side-stepping his point about “abundance.”)
But he will never acknowledge the evidence that contradicts his claims. There are many, many people who find a sudden “abundance” based on the circumstances they just happened to find themselves in and did not create through thought. (Is it safe to say that Paris Hilton has found “abundance” in life?) We all know people who find themselves doing something well in life that they never put any real thought into; it just happened. And then there are plenty of examples of people who build a life around their thoughts and work and find nothing even near “abundance.” That is because “abundance” is decided by those around you. If others don’t like what you do (for whatever reason), “abundance” will never “materialize.” You look at all this and realize it’s hit and miss. There is no clear evidence that what you focus your mind on brings about “abundance.” Otherwise, why are there so many talented yet starving artists in the world? Ironically, Dyer’s good friend, Ram Dass, is one of those. He poured his life into what he believed and “abundance” never found its way to his doorstep.
Something I found true for a lot of people who find financial success in their lives are blind to any luck or coincidence that help create it. They come to believe their “abundance” came solely from them and not others. The fact his, his success was because millions of others each decided individually to buy a copy of “Your Erroneous Zones.” Yes, he put out the work, but it was the public’s acceptance of that work that created that abundance. You can put out all the work you want into the world and non of it will “bring you abundance” until that world decides on their own, for their own reasons, that they like it. I do not know how he can ignore that part of the equation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 29th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Arent’t Religions too much dogmatical ? Influenced by them, don’t people lose their real inner purpose and outer pratice to turn to supercicial social attitudes ? And isn’t the result a lack of coherence between real actions and what is so openly asserted ? : what about a nun being a liar, for example, does it not mean she has not achieved anything at all ? Does it not mean she has met “nothing” but a sort of useless void and she is just another “phoney” ? Now, if this type of doubtful experience happens to some ordinary person will it not be an incentive to quit all those religious fields ?
Wayne Dyer seems to offer his reader to make a real concrete experience, which spiritual aspects should lead to. His language is beyond words. It gives images to precise and describe what could be done and how it could be done. Putting it into practive is probably the only response. Even if building a theory is interesting, is the average reader really attracted by that or mainly by practical positive consequences in his everyday life ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 1st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
The greatest problem with Dr. Dyer’s message is his inability (described by him as unwilling rather than unable) to prove his most fundamental principle. His fundamental message in everything he writes or verbalizes is that you can do anything you set your mind to. So, my challenge can he personally demonstrate that? He proclaims to do so but only with very weak examples. For example, he claims he teachers regarded him as a poor writer and speaker, but look at him today. That is a weak example in my opinion. That is, being better at something than others thought you were as a child is a long, long way off being *anything* (and he emphasizes anything even to the point that he says he teaches his kids to move clouds with their minds) you want. I, too, beat the expectations of my teachers. This is a common claim. There are probably millions who can claim that and therefore is hardly extraordinary enough to prove his point.
I would think that if he wanted to be convincing of his message he would, for the sake of example: make an unprecedented contribution to mathematics, or solve the quantum mechanics puzzle (actually, he shows that he really does not understand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), or become an NBA star, etc. Something that would normally be considered impossible by conventional standards. But he does not. Instead his examples are, “and they said I could not write this book [Wisdom of the Ages] in 60 days.” Well, again, that is a long way from doing the “impossible.” Or that he jumped a fence at 50 years old because he forgot that he was 50. His examples are everyday things that millions do. All he is doing is lowering the standard for what he wants to call “impossible” and then claims we are seeing examples of “impossibility” all around us.
The fact is that his claim that anyone can do anything (i.e., “manifest it”) is a big lie. Ironically, a chapter in one of his books entitled “The Big Lie” claims that the conventional wisdom that we have limitations is the “big lie.” Actually, his claim is not only a lie that he himself cannot prove, but gives false hope to many who could be much happier and more productive should they learn to accept their limitations. An example of this is can be seen at the beginning of each season of “American Idol.” Every year we see examples of thousands of people who have absolutely no singing ability at all say after rejection, “I know I can do this. I know I have greatest within in me and I’m going to pursue my dream regardless of what others say.” (All things Dyer would say, too.) Well, since it is others who do not think they can sing, they’re deluding themselves. No matter how much they think they can sing, the fact these people simply do not and will never possess the talent to sing. Their efforts are in vain. They would be so much better off pursuing something else; knowing their limitations. Yes, there will be a few who surprise us and actually make it beyond the odds, but that does not prove the point that anyone can achieve anything. In fact, that proves there is luck within circumstances because most of these people will not achieve success and will waste years through frustration of pursuing something they cannot do. If Dyer is right, then we can expect to be hearing on the radio these thousands of wannabe singers despite their poor singing skills. Anyone want to bet we won’t be hearing from them at all?
My point is not that people should not try to do the difficult. My point is they people need a realistic self-image, first, and that is based on how others see them, too. (Success actually comes from others not from yourself. No one is successful on a planet where no one else exists. Acceptance by others is what success means. If you do not believe that, then let me operate on you because “I have a knowing” that I am a doctor, even though others do not believe I am. My bet is you wont let me touch you regardless of what I think because it is what others think that matters.) My other point is understanding your limits (e.g. not wasting your time trying to be a professional singer when your voice makes others cringe) is critical to healthy development. This is not the fear of failure I’m talking about, but understanding your circumstances well enough to know what would work for you. Having limitations and knowing them is good and healthy; believing you can do anything is self-delusional and, ultimately, self-defeating.
There will always be a few exceptional people who do something we think is impossible. And they do serve as an inspiration to us all. But this is my main departure from Dyer: that in no way can be extrapolated to anyone else can do it, too. What can be extrapolated is there is luck and coincidence in the world: being born with a great singing voice is not a choice but luck; being born with an high level ability to solve abstract equations as a child is luck; being born with the gift of art is luck; etc.
Another criticism I have of Dyer is that he simply lowers the standard for what can be considered “genius” to prove that “genius” is all around us: children who make up their own languages is one of his examples. Another is his daughter’s ability to train horses. Genius by definition means what only a few can do. If anyone can do something it is not “genius.” His examples are not examples of “genius.” If we go by his standard, then everyone is a genius (and he would probably agree with that). And if everyone is a genius, then actually no one is because there is nothing to separate abilities. Genius marks a level of ability against the efforts of the ordinary.
If Dr. Dyer is truly sincere in his message that anyone can do anything, then give us a real example. So us something truly convincing and not use debating tactics such as redefining words like “genius” to do it. Show something extraordinary on the terms of others not on your own.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
how about leaving him alone and living your own lives. as dr. dyer would say, the only person you can control is yourself. his way of life works for him and he isn’t afraid to talk about it. we all have a choice to listen\read or NOT. thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
And we have a choice, no, a duty, to examine his claims and possible consequences. Would you not agree? If not, why not just also accept Bush’s (you can pick anyone here) ideology without examination? That is because it is through critique and examination that we defend ourselves against falsities. Dr. Dyer is not simply living his life and telling others, he out-and-out says he knows what’s best for us all. If the world is perfect as he says, why does he try so hard to change it all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Dr. dyer teaches extending love and compassion to everyone and everything that comes our way. If you look deep into his teachings, he says you can manifest your destiny ONLY if you align yourself with the universal force (God). We, all human beings can relate to that. Nothing really happens(no manifestation) if we rely on our abilities and strength but on God. I am not pretending to know everything but i know that there is no comparison between bush and dyer. If we all submit to God(which is good and love), the world would have been a better place. And that is exactly what dr. dyer teaches. thank you. God bless
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
“We, all human beings can relate to that.”
I guess atheists and agnostics aren’t human beings
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 4th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Thank you for your response, Abby. However, Dr. Dyer clearly lays out in “A Promise is a Promise” that one can manifest another’s destiny. This is what he and is family attempted to do for Edwarda, as a matter of fact; and to failing results. Her condition did not improve. Once again he did not prove is point and, moreover, never admits it publically.
There was a research experiment recently where the family of severely ill patients were asked to pray for their loved one’s recovery, and the other half asked not to pray their loved one’s recovery. The patients with the praying family members fared worse than the ones with family members who did not pray. This means either praying for others doesn’t work, or it’s coincidence to begin with.
Now, I know Dr. Dyer does not have much faith in scientific research, but he does use it when it supports something he already believes. For instance, he points out the scientific research that shows that when people are in presence of a positive act that their serotonin levels increase. Dr. Dyer, unfortunately, cherry picks his research: picks what supports his claims and disregards that which does not support him.
My point about Bush was that Dr. Dyer asks that we are open to all ideas. Should we be? Open to the teachings of Heaven’s Gate? Open to the hateful ideas of the KKK? My point was that if we are to accept any idea that anyone puts forth, without challenging it, questioning it, and critiquing it, then you have no reference to the truth and in fact can be blindly led to devastating consequences. (I’m not suggestion Dyer leads to devastating consequences, what I am saying is that with out critique of any idea that can be the result. Critique and reasoning is how one keeps out of trouble. So, my point is that challenging ideas is the only way one can seek truth and his ideas need to challenged.)
The followers of Heaven’s Gate could have lived had they simply used reason to question their leader’s claims. Dyer asks us to critique everyone but him. Question authority when he is not the authority; banish your doubts. But when it comes to others, say, President Bush, then by all means have your doubts.
Dyer sets up a circular reasoning system that allows him to avoid criticism. He will never admit when his ideas are wrong and he plainly says that he does not take challenges. While I believe he is personally honest, I believe his methods are not and does not appear to be smart enough to realize it. He creates a fool’s paradise. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 4th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Great remarks from both of you. yes, a promise is a promise and one can manifest ones destiny if they rely on the universal knowledge of the universe. That is the only way, and all of you seem to leave that fact out. I have never heard dr. dyer suggesting that we should rely on our selves (physical and mental abilities) but also on the spiritual. The spiritual part is hard to explain cuz it is a deep knowing in human’s heart. i can go on an on about the love of your own children but you will never know what it is like until you have children. It is one of those things. About prayer, if i pray for someone and they dont’ get healed, it doesn’t justify anything. It only means that the time for that person on earth has come to an end. Again, the only core teaching from Dr. dyer is LOVE. And the rest follows. I believe in results too, so if one person listens to his teachings and able to forgive another who harmed him, or if one learns how to love the other person with no judgement then i would say his work is done on earth. Lets focus on human value (love, compassion, forgiveness, helping one another, non judgemental attitudes) instead of material things. Yes dr. dyer also says, be open to everything but attached to nothing. That doesn’t include hatred or judgement of any kind.
Anyhow my point is, lets leave our ego behind and not argue for the sake of arguing. John, you read his teachings and you challenged it, but it doesn’t seem to work or YOU. But it works for so many others. so why don’t you just accept who he is and extend love towards him.
Dave, you picked just one phrase from my paragraphe and made it a point of argument. I didn’t say athiest aren’t human beings, but they have their own “non god” phylosophy. just cuz athiest believes that there is no God , it doesn’t make it true. I accept their way of life even if i dont’ agree with it. Let’s not judge eachother but let’s try to live with eachother in LOVE.
God bless
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
The Dyer approach predates most religions it started in the Garden of Eden and it was one of the two trees, guess which one. Hint, Not the tree of Life. The tree of the Knowledge of good and evil has an appeal and like the Dyer information it looks and taste good but in the absence of fellowship with the Almighty God it will not sustain a spiritual life. The error on Eve’s part was to rely on the thinking and feeling part of ourselves to obtain the position of Captain of our own destiny. .REAPEATED MOST NOTABLY BY NIMROD IN THE TOWER OF BABEL. Reality has it that they and we obtain the highest position when we have the same mind set that Jesus Christ has/had “let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus”. that mind set is obedience to and fellowship with the Creator that is our Father. Mary said “be it done unto me according to your word” that resulted in Mary bringing forth a Son that would manifest the Father and do His will. The Father has exalted the name of Jesus above every name that is named as Scripture records that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and ever tongue will confess his lordship. Getting in touch with the Christ that is indwelling connects us to the Fathers will and transcends good and evil and moves us to Righteousness, peace and joy. You guessed it the Kingdom of God is where it is happening. You can only have one King in a Kingdom the problem is everyone wants to be the chief and there are no Indians. As long as we are seeking our own, what’s in it for me, and my, me and mine the results are obvious. When we turn our life over to Jesus. in reality not just the motions than things start to change. We stop living the life that we created from our will and start living the life God has planned for us since the beginning. God starts to birth the new creation man in us who is the light in the world and a manifestation of God’s love in the earth. Most of this Dyer and new age, eastern etc is devoid of a personal relationship with the Source of our existence that is the Almighty God. They are trying to tap into the mind and emotional part of our being where we measure by what we see, smell and hear instead of tapping into the Christ who the bible says dwells in us. The same spirit that raised Christ from the dead dwells in us and it will make alive our mortal bodies. I believe the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth and all righteousness, peace and harmony. The Dyer method appears to circumvent the yielding part which is necessary to any real success ,happiness or fulfillment in our life. Remember the Tree of knowledge was not only evil it was a tree of judging good and evil. The bible teaches that we need to have our senses exercised to discern good from evil. That process takes a Spiritual connection with the Holy Spirit. The Natural mind doesn’t get it we need to use the Christ mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 5th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
When electricity was first discovered as a power source any product being sold that could not be explained was attributed to “it works by electricity” The newness of this science is an invitation to make questionable claims. I have been hearing that our thoughts can effect the universe and can cause earthquakes and tsunamis, Butterfly effect?? I am not an expert , but it seems quantum science is trying to fill in the unexplained areas of physical science so if it can explain fantasy, great!. I do know our attitude can cause us a lot of grief but tsunamis, I think not. Having said all that. I would like to add that I was a viewer of Charlie Chan (remember his frequent references to Confucius), and an avid viewer of Kung Fu played by John Carridine a popular series. Many of the wise Dr Dyer statements are very familiar. They remind me of the proverbs we would often recite to help us with value judgments, some made a lot of sense. I would hesitate to call the ideas evil or bad just immature. I also see the correlation of the 60’s hippies. Bad vibes, your energy is taking me down. I don’t like the energy. I like your energy. I feel like I am receiving so much energy when I usually am drained by others having low energy. I lived through it but never got it but I never smocked any weed. Seems to me we should be giving people genuine answers,not displaying the world through rose colored glasses. If your being attacked I think the energy you should engage is fight or flight positive intentions may fall short for the moment we can hope later. We may all be ONE but its best to remove the bad apples out of the barrel. I can hear the energy people saying of my post “Bad Trip”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Jesus Christ!
Fellows….I lived on Maui for 10+ years…just left in April 07.
I saw Dyer in Detroit 25 years ago,…his spiel is the same, but more along the lines of his buddy Deepak Chopra.
…who ripped off the Maharishi (Beatles) and Ram Dass.
Dyer lost me w/ the current NPT hocking the $365. “Whole Enchilada”….saying he “had to get out of Kaanapali Maui, it was too much”…??? What the hell is he talking about? Ram Dass is in a wheel chair and George Harrison died who lived in Hana.
Maybe Maui is a portal to the infinite?
Glad I got out at 52.
Oh, and Jesus is NOT the ONLY way to God, you idiots!
Aloha.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 5th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Flying isn’t the only way to Maui, but it is a long swim or a lot of rowing. p.s. Most try to respect other peoples views, calling them idiots isn’t validating but reveals immaturity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Prayer only works if it is God’s will.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I find these discussions concerning Mr. Dyer and many of his “erroneous zoned” beliefs even more confirming to the “absoluteness” of truth that Jesus spoke. For man made wisdom void of absolute truth always tends to breed but more confusion! A couple of things that sets Jesus’ credentials apart from all others is this: His virgin birth at one end and His resurrection from the dead at the other concerning His manifested life here in the earth. Two well documented and substaniated realities! The problem from Jesus’ teachings perspectve concerning Mr Dyer’s views is the absence of dealing with man’s real problem, his “sin” condition introduced into the human bloodline back in the Garden. I’m wondering if Mr Dyer agrees with Jesus’ statement: “You must be born again?” That being said, I will give Mr. Dyer some credit for doing his humanistic best to try to explain how to function in the reality of what Jesus did teach, that being: “All things are possible to him that believes!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
“Two well documented and substaniated realities!”
By well documented I’m sure you mean all the contemporary accounts of this by the historians of the day.
“Prayer only works if it is God’s will.”
Head’s I win, tales you lose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
why won’t the dyer doctor name his source? if we came from this source then it seems if we have personality then “source” must also have personality but in a far greater reality. also what of forgiveness? men have made this world into a far from perfect place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Historical authentication takes many sources into account to arrive at what it considered actual, proven, factual history. That being said, there is as much “evidence” of the two accounts mentioned as there is…say… Alexander the Great ever lived and plundered! Prayer only works if it is God’s will? True that! One need only to look into God’s Word and they will discover His will. And in that He is no respector of persons, the clearer truth is that Jesus always placed the emphasis on an individual’s faith as the determining factor in answered prayer. [Matthew 21,22] But wait a minute… faith begins where the will of God is known, so in the knowing of His Word one can only then pray in faith, thus be empowered to believe for the answer! And according to Jesus…believing is the prerequiste for receiving! (Mark 11:24) Heads or tails I still win!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
P.S. By the way Dave, I have become quite fascinated with your area of expertise, quantum physics and such, over the last few years. Realizing that according to the Scriptures we are able to percieve and understand how the unseen {spirit] dimension functions, as we look closer and discern more clearly the inner workings of our physical realm and it’s governing properties! Recognizing that the latter was parented in the former! Just my way of sayin: “I enjoy your site!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Wayne Dyer demonstrated his true nature in a PBS appearance when he told the story about trying to get a lot of books on the airplane (more than he should), and how he would use his ‘techniques’ on the attendant and have her ‘eating out of his hand’. Eating out of his hand? When you try and imitate Christ, and you’re no Christ, you make mistakes. That’s what it’s about, getting people to eat out of your hand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I agree with Robert R. When I watched Mr Dyer recall that story, I was dismayed. It felt very manipulative. And at that point all I could see was a man with a huge ego. It felt like his true colors peeked through….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
The best bumper sticker I ever saw was, “Jesus please save me from your followers”. After reading the majority of these posts, I am reminded why I love that sticker so much. I betcha’ Jesus is up there pulling for Wayne and all of us crazy fools for that matter. Obviously “the creator” has a great sense of humor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I’ll take the evidence of Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus, and Justin et al over Josephus and Tacitus any day, not to mention that the later never mention a virgin birth.
Yes, heads or tails you still win! Isn’t it fun to win at a game you’ve rigged? “The stage is too big for the drama.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Oh, and thanks for the kind words about my site, although I’ll bet you can guess that I don’t think quantum physics has much to say about spirituality. Call me a young grump
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 6th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
No Dave, that’s the beauty of truth. The Creator rigged the whole deal concerning securing eternal life for us through the gift of the Son. All He asks us to do it simply take Him at His word in childlike faith and humility. No doubt, we can’t find God with that head of ours, man did I try…then I discovered that’s what our hearts are for! The stage is not nearly as big as what lies at the end of the production: eternity! Either Jesus is who He said He was and therefore spoke the truth or He is not and He didn’t. I guess for me, when I chose to believe He was and did, I found myself put in that position of a man with a lifetime of experience that eventually finds himself not again at the mercy of one with but a mere arqument! You young grump you! lol Ah… Dave, actually spirituality has much to say about quantum physics, if we have them ears simple ole Jesus said was necessary for one heart’s to hear what can’t be heard, yet is being openly communicated! Gosh, just imagine a man with your obviously gifted intellect gettin a hold of them there ears poor misinformed Jesus spoke about. Again, I like your site Dude, lots of interesting thoughts in much of your work…hey and even”some” truth. lol
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 7th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Watched the “newest” PBS offering by Wayne Dyer about the “Dao.” Laughed all the way through it as it was so opposite of what he was trying to teach. He “gave up” his townhouse (to supposedly get rid of things and books he no longer needed) yet lives in Hawaii and swims with the whales…..
Then he tells a parable about taking a T-shirt his son likes away from him, supposedly to teach the son that things aren’t important??? What a crock.
His whole new premise negates his “intention gets you what you want” drivel completely. Guess PBS was scheduled and he had to write something up quickly. (The J.K.Rowling syndrome of promising 7 books but only having talent for 2.)
Running around in bare feet doesn’t a dao master make. When we see him with a bowl and a bell….maybe. (He can leave me his house in Hawaii, happy to take it off his hands, tax-free.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 7th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Bowls and bells are Buddhist.
If you ever actually saw a Taoist master, you would not know it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 7th, 2007 at 11:44 am
re: post from chancery stone. in his blog, he comments about Americans: “They’ve been rolling with snakes and speaking in tongues, finding stone tablets in the hillsides and offering polygamous marriage as a way to get closer to God for many years now. Even to this day they set themselves up in desert camps and hoard guns as acts of ‘righteousness’ then commit suicide in mass pacts that make people in tinfoil hats worshipping His Holiness, The Hobgoblin of Wellington Boots, look sane.
We Brits just don’t do it”
As an American, I find it quite odd that Brits choose to worship at the shrine of Her Highness, who is the the Queen of The Hobgoblin Hats. A woman of such frigid mein that she could be used as a deep freezer if only she had a door on her front. Plus, one of the richest women in the world, a billionaire, who, until quite recently, lived 100% tax-free, supported by the the compulsory taxes of Brits like Chancery. And not her alone, but the entire useless royal family, living on the dole of people who actually do work for a living.
If they were living on my dogs back, I’d call them parasites and take him in for a flea dip. Instead, the Brits go quite mad when Her Hideousness shows up with a sissors to snip a ribbon at a garden show. This maddness manifests itself chiefy by: compulsory bouquet giving which must be presented by virginal girl children under the age of 10; dipping and curstying like Mad Hatters; and, an overwhelming interest in the most minute details of the royal life. Including an obsession with their breeding habits that make a 12-step program for sex addiction look like a kindergarden party. Who can forget Prince Tamponito?
But to get back to the garden shows. Wielding a sissors with such precision a few dozen times a year is so exausting, that, August through October, she must retire to Balmoral, her 55,000 acre country cottage where she exists with only 200 servants in attendance. Worn out by her toils, the by now anemic Queen is restored to health by daily infusions of freshly slaughtered stag blood. Why, it’s like a fairy tale!
Give me a Wayne Dryer any day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 7th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Wayne uses them all, Sai Baba, Tsu, Confucius, Buddha, Jesus….tells everyone they can get what they want (The Secret) if they “intend” it, be sure and torment you children, while you are at it, teach them cruelty for having their “selfish desires,”and now he wants hos followers to give it all up. “Die while you’re alive.” You don’t need all that stuff in your homes/offices. It “weighs you down.”
Bet that’s interesting for his book sales. People really don’t need to buy his books and tapes now….he doesn’t need their money any more.
He’s complete. (Wonder what Hay House thinks of that??)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 7th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Wayne Dyer is nothing more than the Dr. Phil of the soft-headed, educated, NPR PBS left. What is so surpising is to see all those ‘smart’ people so gullibly suck it in and in a way reminiscent of people considerabley less educated and more routinely reviled. And to see the camera pan across those smug, melifluous, knowing smiles and agreeing nods that silently say, “I’m here for the secret of life, and he’ll give it to me.” Dyer is such an obvious fraud he’s laughable. What does that say about his audience? I’m really quite shocked at this sort of thing on PBS. They are, indeed, a cult after all.
I am especially amused when Dyer goes on a venting rant. They are short but interesting. Like when he gripes about doing yard work or fix it jobs around the house. “I don’t do screen doots,” he once quipped after a rant on being distracted while in the act of inspired cdreation. Ugh …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 7th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
A Taoist with a website store selling books and giving lectures on TV is sort of like a Poor Clare nun driving a new Rolls-Royce. They just don’t get it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 7th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Wayne’s just a bald Sylvia Brown….and about as useful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 7th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
If it crawls under your skin so bad, why do you watch it? Why not find some quaint little show laden with sarcasm or pessimism? I haven’t watched the whole thing myself, but Dr. D. did say one of the most intelligent things that I’ve heard lately. In fact, he had the whole audience repeat it with him. It went something like this…”I don’t know”. Practice it. I promise it will sharpen your intellect (be you a scientist or theologian).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 7th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I’m confident not anyone of us “sperts” qualifies to actually come to any real conclusion concerning Wayne’s motivation to do what he does. Heck , it could be his spirit truly embraces that which he speaks, and thus sincerely believes he is “helping” folk, you know… make them ok cause he’s ok? I’m kinda thinkin he really does, shoot…I’ll give the guy the benefit of my doubts. And hey if that’s true- you gotta give him credit for gettin out there and in bed [ no pun intended] with they with the ability to get his message out! One thing I do know- his “intention” of being “heard” certainly has come to pass. We are his proof, we been talkin about what we “heard” from him for a few days now! Yikes!!! Wow, maybe it is true?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 8th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I can’t figure out why Dr. Dyer’s philosopies seem to be so awe inspiring to so many folks. Man has spent thousands, perhaps millions, of years looking within himself for the meaning of life through Eastern philosophies and mysiticism. In fact the greater part of our planet’s population follows these belief systems.Yet to date he is still looking!
If these philosophies really worked wouldn’t we be experiencing Dr Dyer’s idea of solving conflicts with love worldwide by now???? Dr Dyer seems to be cashing in on old philosohies with new hand movements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 8th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
oops sorry for the typos
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 8th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
perhaps prayer can work, even if it’s not God’s will. the Israelites asked for a king and God gave them one, even though it was not His perfect will. they were asking for a king because they had rejected God as their King. Maybe we should be careful what we ask for.{reference-the book of Samuel}
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 9th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Hello all
What is all the fuss about? There were two books published some years ago. “The power of positive thinking” and “Think and grow rich”. Dr Dyer has taken those concepts and dressed them up by using sayings from ancient philosiphers and religion. Put it all into a new package, TV, DVD,s etc. and has made a success of it. What is so mysterious about that?
What is he saying. “This is how I have made a success of my life, and you can do the same”.
Why is it that some people see some one who is successful, and immediatley jump to the conclusion that they must be cheating?
Some doubt the power of thought. Look around you.
Everything that we humans do, begins with a thought, including you. Without thought nothing would get done.
Have you never been in a room full of people, when a person walks into the room and the whole atmosphere changes. Some times positivly and some times not.
Look back on your own life and see how the experiences you have had, have influenced your life. Your family, schooling, work mates,etc. The experience affects you only by what you take from it. What you accept or reject. There are three ways you can go. Take a positive attitude a negative attitude or neutral. The event it self do’s not do anything. Only you really know who you are, to every one else you are a figment of their imagination. The same go’s for your opinion of others.
Lawrence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 9th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Here’s what all the fuss is about:
Remember all the Christian televangelists who, in the name of Jesus (who would not accept a rich man as his disciple because he only wanted to give away HALF of his money and who said: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into Heaven.”) then preached the ‘Gospel of Prosperity’, telling people that if they obeyed God he would make them rich in return? Basically, they turned the entire message of Jesus upside down for their own personal gain.
The same applies to charlatans who twist and manipulate the teachings of others in order to convey their own message for their own personal gain. It is simple deception and it is dishonest. It is also very offensive to those who have taken to heart those genuine teachings that are now being manipulated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 9th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
aka Dr. Wayne Liar and the Power of Invention
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 9th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I must say that I throughly enjoyed reading each of the comments here, respectively. I, too, stumbled upon the recent PBS special with Dr. Dyer, during an insomnia bout, and managed to watch the entire show. It is amazing to me, how these people get on television, command these exhorbitant fees from a room full of hungry souls “seeking” something, anything that will help them with whatever they’re experiencing. I wish that I had that talent, I’d certainly be very rich.
The shrewd listener, keeping an “open mind”, as has been suggested by many on this page, will clearly hear many philosophies cloaked within what Dr. Dyer states is his interpretation of the Dao. I was entertained by the show, and truly howled when Dr. Dyer stated that he had divested himself of all his worldly goods-with the exception of the Maui estate, etc. I do not need anyone telling me to divest of anything in the name of anything, to “free” myself.Yes, I agree with some of the posters here, I will certainly accept any of the antiques and the Maui property for free, should the good doctor need to divest of any more “incumberances”. Yes, keep sending your $300+ dollars in folks!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 10th, 2007 at 12:31 am
hello…last I checked, this is America…if someone picks up a book, looks through it and decides, “Gee, this is a good book and I have the money to buy it…I think I’ll buy it.”, they can…this is not Dr. Dyer manipulating people out of money…it’s called free will, which is something he promotes…
…as some people freely believe that we come from monkeys and apes, there is simply no scientific proof to this “theory”, it is merely bad guesswork by “smart people”…I reiterate guesswork…
Also, it is fair to say that some people will never believe that being kind to others will in turn POSSIBLY cause others to be kind to you…or that when you give, people may POSSIBLY feel inclined to give to you…
…it happens…it just so happens that the more often you are kind and giving, the more often it happens…I don’t need a giant list of “smart people” to “prove this” and publish thier “findings” in a book and call it “science” to believe it…but I guess some people always will…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 10th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Hello again.
I find it interesting that we all interperate Dr Dyer’s lectures and writings in differant ways. Also the postings. Isn’t that what Dr Dyer is doing with his quotes from the various religions and philosiphers.
From my own experiace I can tell you that his teachings do work. I began trying to pattern my life in the same manner fifty years ago, when Dr Dyer was still a teenager. I stress “trying”. My insperations at that time were the two books I mentioned in an earlier posting. “The Power of Positive Thinking” and “Think and grow Rich” I also read “A Magnificent Obsession” A work of fiction but a good idea of how to live a life.
He says he has given up material things. Has got rid of unnesersary clutter in his life. We all have our own idea as to what that is. He is certainly no Mother Terasa, although he uses her as an example from time to time.
He lives on Maui. Last time I heard, prime water front realestate was one million dollars a front foot. It is probably a lot more now. If he is living in a very remote area, in a tent, which I doubt, he is paying lots of bucks to be there. Still I do not believe he has cheated anyone or given anyone false hopes. As some one else said none of us have to read his books or watch him on TV, and if we do we are free to make up our own minds as to what we take from him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 10th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
hello…
let’s see…according to Dr. Dyer, if we do things we enjoy to do, we will be happier…
…makes sense to me…
…if we get rid of things that we don’t like, we will be happier…
…again…makes sense to me…
…a loving God wants us to prosper and share…
…o.k…so far, so good…
kindness=good…anger=bad…
…I think he’s onto something here…
I think people get angry at him because he charges people Money for his books, etc.
Here’s what I think…there are many different ways to make money…selling drugs, guns, and porn…
OR…
You can write down some ideas that people will benefit from…you can talk about things that people will benefit from…and you can invest your money in things that will make this money grow…
So, don’t be pissed because he’s rich…he earned it by helping others, in an honest way…that is his gift…he forces nobody to buy stuff…people seem to have a demand for his ideas…probably because his ideas work…
…people usually don’t reach enlightenment by putting others down…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 10th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Wayne Dyer is the Guru!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 11th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
here goes…
if you want to learn about Jesus, read the Bible.
if you want to learn about Dr. Dyer, read some Dr. Dyer books.
Wayne seems to know how to be happy on earth, and Jesus knows and tells us not to be wrapped up in earthly things, as we are not of this earth, but we are just in this earth…for a while.
BUT WAIT!!!
Science hasn’t “proven” Jesus’ teachings! Whatever are we to do!? It’s called faith. Which basically means we don’t need proof from men.
I have seen and experienced miracles.
I don’t know how miracles work, but I don’t think I have to.
Meanwhile, major university studies across the nation are trying to find out big important things like, “Do women really talk more than men?”, and “Do sharks have thier own langauge?”
How’s that cure for cancer coming along, fellas?
I guess my point is that I am very skeptical of scientists who waste grant money on useless crap, then have balls enough to says things like, “You can’t prove the benefits of positive thinking! It’s just not scientifically sound! We need tangible results!”
I would trust Jesus over a scientist any day.
And if Dr. Dyer gets his proof by personal experience and not science, that’s good enough for me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 12th, 2007 at 7:45 am
So, you don’t think that science has had more of an impact on the quality of your life than a character of the past of who never left any writings and was not even written about for over 150 years after his death? Basically, an unknown historical figure that was largely “created” in many ways by 2nd century Christians.
So, the advances in understanding bacteria and viruses and the near elimination of plague, yellow fever, malaria, and typhoid in the developed nations has less of a positive impact in your life than the writings of superstitious and oppressive men during superstitious and oppressive times? That’s like saying “Hansel and Gretel” is more important to my well being than medical science.
The failure of science to prove something in no way is a comment on faith. Any failing on science’s part does not mean faith is right about anything. “Faith” is another word for abdication of reason. Religious faith had almost everything wrong. It took science to answer most of the questions that faith never could–and didn’t even come close to.
Faith has a bad track record. I have no faith in it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 12th, 2007 at 10:52 am
ummm…
not written about for over 150 years??? Obviously, you have not been to a bookstore in say, 150 years.
Basically unknown historical figure??? Let’s see, 2000 yrs. later, we’re still taking about Him.
Largely created??? I think you mean He created largely.
And “the failure of science to prove something in no way is a comment on faith.”
FINALLY-something we agree on. Didn’t you read the part where I said I don’t NEED SCIENCE TO BE MY PROOF?
Science has indeed effected my life because God has given humans gifts of intelligence(some) and has shown these people the way to a cure. To say it is science and man alone is foolish.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 12th, 2007 at 10:58 am
By the way, I think women do talk more than men, but I’m glad the local Journal here in town published those results(slow news day) because now I know for sure.
Scientists make me cry:)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 12th, 2007 at 11:39 am
hello…
…I think the reason you can’t find writings on Jesus shortly after He died was because the Pharisees, kings and whatnot would persecute anyone who claimed to be a follower of Jesus…
…anyone caught or accused of being a christian would be put to death or locked up, and writings were confiscated and destroyed…
…History Channel, y’know…
…that’s HISTORY channel…history, as in things that really happened…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 12th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Religion and spirituality are two different things entirely. Religion, I believe, is dogma. Man-made rules. Spirituality is building a relationship with God. Seeking out God’s rules, which are more or less “Love your neighbor as yourself”, and “Forgiveness.”
When did God say the world was flat?
Perhaps you are right not to have faith in religions, but religion is not God. God is love.
The body of Christ is not a building. It is all His followers acting toghether for a higher purpose. Service to others.
Of course, there will always be wolves in sheeps clothing, but they are not always scientists, philosophers, or priests. They are simply pretenders.
And while we can’t judge others as being good or bad, we can make a judgment call as to what we choose to fill our heads with. We can judge the difference between right and wrong, but we shouldn’t judge people. Not our job.
We can limit Dr. Dyer, but Dyer chooses not to be limited by our thoughts, only his own.
God cannot be limited by anyone. Miracles happen when God decides to suspend the laws of science and human reason momentarily for His will, not human intention. If a human was aligned with God’s intention, and was in agreement with God, then a miracle may occour.
But this is not a human performing a miracle, it is God using the human as a vessel.
It has been said that if you asked a scientist a hundred yrs. ago if he believed in God he would say,”Of course not, I’m a scientist.”
But if you asked a modern day scientist if he believed in God he would say,”Of course I do, I’m a scientist.”
This is because people have come to realize that God and science go hand in hand. Science isn’t all man-made jibberish, it is seeking out and understanding God’s mysteries of the earth(which was discovered to be round only by exploring with an open mind and a little faith).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 13th, 2007 at 3:07 am
I have seen Dr Dyer on PBS and I think of him as a teacher. Like all of us he is trying to make sense out of this experience of “life”. He writes about his journey, his observations, his discoveries, and as a teacher, he shares what he has learned. Unlike some teachers he doesn’t say you will go to hell if you don’t believe him. While he does offer answers he is not dogmatic. He offers perpectives that aren’t new but aren’t often taught in our society. He is inclusive with his ideas and beliefs. His books sell because there are a lot people searching for something better than what they were taught. Some embrace his ideas, some walk away.
It’s great to have faith and believe, but a religion is called a “belief” and a “faith” for a reason: that is precisely what it is. No matter how convinced you are, it is still a “belief”. If the bible answers all your questions… well then good for you. It doesn’t answer all of my questions. Here is just one as an example: With God’s infinite imagination and divine love how did he come up with the solution of “redeeming” mankind with the crucifixion and death of his son? That’s the best and most loving idea he could come up with? What an insult to a loving God. Some of Dr Dyer’s ideas strike me as silly and even weird but they are all better than that one. That’s not God’s thinking, that’s the thinking of men. Primitive, barbaric men. The bible is full of this kind of “man-thinking”. I believe in a better God than the bible god and I suspect Dr Dyer does too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 13th, 2007 at 7:48 am
One can take from the Tao Te Ching and use it in ways for which it may not have been intended (e.g., to sell books, to make one sound wise). For example, Dyer is violating several instructions of Lao Tzu such as
“Those who know do not talk. Those who talk do not know.” (From Chapter 57 of the Tao Te Ching)
“If you want to possess something, you must first give it away.”(From Chapter 36)
The problem is that I can also find others that may support what he is doing.
The lesson here is to be careful when you start to believe without careful scrutiny. To quote W. K. Clifford
“The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them, for then it must sink back into savagery… It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my neighbors ready to deceive. The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 13th, 2007 at 9:03 am
You all think too much, talk too much. You don’t have to believe DWD a prophet or a scientist, only a teacher. Believe or not, some or all, but if a person is quiet, and strive to connect, it makes sense at a level that defies explanation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 13th, 2007 at 9:21 am
A dash of Lao, a sprinkle of Siddhartha, a touch of Jesus, a pinch of Krishna.
Jack of all trades…master of none.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 13th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
The last comment by Gary is my favorite so far.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 13th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Kermit the Frog has some pretty good philosophy, too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 13th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
“Time’s fun when you’re having flies.”
-Kermit the Frog
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 13th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
To JohnQPublic: If you’re comparing the language of sharks and the # of words spoken by women vs. men with the elimanation of plauge, malaria, etc., then maybe you should put down the Hansel and Gretel books. And the books about Jesus may not be in the fairy tale section. Probably a reason for that.
Start with the Kermit philosophy and work your way up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Not sure what you mean, HA. My only point is that faith, which is so often substantiated by the bible, is largely built on unverifiable claims. And not just biblical claims. Claims that we have immortal souls; claims that the universe (actually, a pantheistic view) conspires to help us out through tricky subtle messages; etc. Those who buy into these claims are abandoning their highest quality: reason. Ironically, there really is no escaping the human desire to reason. Even those who make these claims under the guise of “faith” attempt to reason them, too. Dr. Dyer spends years reasoning out his beliefs–he even gives use reasons why reason is not the best arbitrator of truth in his opinion. So, even he does not escape the reasoning process. Humans are built to reason and it is our greatest defense mechanism. Without it, all claims can be considered truthful. Research has shown time and again that those who rely on instinct, gut-feeling, and intuition can be more easily conned than those who reason. In fact, cons always avoid the rational person.
However, my “Hansel and Gretel” remark was to draw a comparison to the bible. After all, if we don’t need reason to ascertain truth, as the faithful claim, then isn’t “Hansel and Gretel” equally truthful by that criteria? If my basis for truth is that I simply believe it (“I’ll See It When I Believe It!”), then what makes one story more worthy than another?
Fact: The bible was heavily edited by emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea 300 years after Jesus died, hardly a first hand account, for the political purpose of consolidating his followers. The bible is a collection of books with no first hand accounts–e.g. gospels were written almost 200 years after Christ–from the minds of very superstitious men.
I think JMB, in an earlier post here, was on to something. Those like Dyer who acquire their “abundance” by talking as if they know the big answers should be viewed with suspicion. If Dyer truly lives by the Tao Te Ching, then why must he go on television to talk about it when by doing so if violating one of its tenets? That’s because he wants to proclaim truth to others and not really seek it. His claim, like so many others, is he has found “the truth” (albeit from many different sources) and to follow him “in spirit.” His message is: abandon your reasoning (when it comes to him), abandon your doubts (when it comes to him), and give in to his beliefs because his intentions are pure. It as been a long-held philosophical point that pure in intention does not mean pure in action.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 8:01 am
This should be of interest to anyone inquiring about Dr. Dyer. This is taken from:
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/letters/glenkcet.html
From: Glen Meloy
To: The President’s Office at KCET
Subject: Dr. Wayne Dyer and Sai Baba
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:30:25 -0700
The President’s Office at KCET
Dear KCET,
I was shocked to learn today in the Email below that Wayne Dyer actively promotes and speaks of Sai Baba in his books and lectures.
If I had known that at the time of your fund-raising over a year ago, I certainly would not have purchased the Wayne Dyer “whole enchilada” as it was then being promoted.
For your information, Sai Baba is the leader of one of the largest mind-controlling cults in the world and is a total fraud and sexual deviate who molest boys and young men and who claims to be the God of Gods. His organization in the United States has been and still is covering up these activities since 1980.
Don’t just take my word for it. Check out the material found on http://exbaba.nl.
The listeners and viewers of KCET and all PBS stations that allowed Wayne Dyer to participate in their fund-raising programs and the unsuspecting followers of Wayne Dyer deserve to know the truth about this fraud avatar who masquerades in a cloak of goodness, while in reality, is sexually molesting his victims in his private interview rooms in India .
I expect to hear from you and will want to know what you plan to do to rectify and help expose this horrible deception fostered on your listeners and viewers.
The background of celebrity Guests for fund-raising efforts should be more carefully checked out in the future to prevent this most unfortunate situation. If your staff would have done a google search on Dyer, it would have learned he was endorsing and promoting a world-wide sex molester by the name of, Sai Baba.
Glen Meloy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 8:34 am
I bet I know how Dyer ended up promoting this fraud, Sai Baba: because he relied on faith and didn’t ask the critical questions that would have exposed him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 9:46 am
It amazes me that Wayne Dyer can boast of “leaving it ALL” including his shoes. To go to MAUI?? Oh please! Don’t you need $$$ to live in MAUI?? Wayne, get real…you left what you WANTED to leave!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
To JohnQPublic: Didn’t mean to sound harsh(well, o.k. maybe a little). It’s just that in response to Jayson’s claim to have personally expirienced miracles firsthand, thereby recieving all the proof he needs of a God that others choose not to believe in, and then being frustrated at university studies that waste $$ on things like girls vs. boys—you suddenly went on to say(not quoting verbatum…to lazy)”So, you don’t think science curing malria had an impact on your life?”
huh?
All i’m saying is that if someone sees something with thier own eyes that is considered a miracle, you probably will not be able to convince him that reason is superior to faith.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I find an interesting irony here. Some argue against faith or religion because it does not stand the test of reason and/or is based on the flawed reasoning that results from a belief in the supernatural. Quantum theory, though, especially with the introduction of chance as a structural element of existence has, if anything, demonstrated that nothing is beyond the realm of possibility…even God. Wouldn’t you say a lot of ‘faith’ is required to accept some of the results of contemporary quantum theory, e.g. quantum foam, wormholes, vacuum energy, string theory, hyperspace, supergravity, multiple dimensions, etc., etc. Comparing what we know today to what we knew five hundred years ago, it would seem prudent to consider what we won’t know until another five hundred years.
“The more you know, the less you understand.”
Lao tzu
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Hansel and Gretel taught me not to take candy from strangers. That’s pretty good advice.
That could be a good metaphor. Is Dyer the “stranger” and is his message the “candy?”
hmmm…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I think you jumped on that one, froggy.
Pluck your magic twanger.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Thank you Gary. I happen to agree with your last comment as well, about how chance being introduced as a structural element of existence shows us that anything is possible.
That is truth. I would definitely watch your PBS program should you ever get one.
And to HA: When an alligator opens his mouth really wide, his eyes will close.
You see, HA…the frog philosophy ain’t that bad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
There’s a misunderstanding: because faith does not stand up to reason does not mean it is flawed. That is not my point. It’s that faith is speculation and therefore has no criteria to be measured. So, it’s not that it is flawed it is: why believe one speculative view over another when they’re all just taken on faith? The Christian belief is no more valid or invalid than the beliefs of the Wadarni tribe of South America. Thus, no more valid than any fairytale.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
To JohnQPublic: Forgive the misunderstanding. I did take it to mean you thought faith was flawed because it hasn’t been proven by reason. Your last comment cleared that up nicely.
BUT…
See, here’s the thing…the criteria of faith is that we don’t need criteria for it to work. It works because we know it will.
As you can see, there is no reason to it. That is why it is hard to understand.
AND TO FROG:
ummm…
Where do I start. Well, I actually can’t say I disagree with you. And I like metaphors. Soooooo…I guess you take the chips on this one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
ribbit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Well put, HA. Your “don’t need criteria for it to work” is well stated, in my opinion. But having faith is not lost on me. I do get it. But when I ask myself have I put my faith into something truthful, I am immediately confronted with the need for a working definition for “truthful.” It is hard to escape the notion that truth is something that stands up against critique. Therefore, truth is objective. If it were subjective and changed from individual to individual, then the word “truth” becomes meaningless and every idea is equally valid. No idea is false if there is no critique. So, while I don’t need criteria to make it work, I do need some yardstick to determine if I’m being told lies or not. Reason is all we have.
To me if I am going to accept a body of thought especially put forth by someone claiming to have the answers, then I want to make sure that it is correct. My simply believing it is not enough. The world simply could not work that way. The worth of every doctor, dentist, lawyer, and any other professional is determined by the recommendations of others. No one in their right mind is going to choose a doctor simply because that doctor believe in himself. When you choose a doctor you want references; the opinions of others about the doctor are more important than his opinion of himself. Therefore, through the testimony of others I can discern some truth about the doctor. If your faith is misplaced into a falsehood, what is the worth of your faith?
My personal view about faith can be best described with a metaphor about life represented as a party with a magical box.
Here you have a party with people laughing, conversing, drinking, and generally enjoying themselves. But there is this mysterious box in the middle of the room. When anyone approaches the box it vanishes. It is perpetually elusive. But when you don’t attempt to grab it, it reappears. After a few attempts at snatching at the box, most people give up and resume having fun. However, there are some that start to speculate about the box. After a while they come to believe they know what the box means and its significance to everyone at the party. However, each one speculating comes up with a different answer, but all are convinced they’re right. They’re speculation is truth (and religion doest claim objective, not subjective, truth) and if everyone at the party does not buy into their newly created truth there’s a price to pay.
Soon they focus their entire time on the box. The box becomes their party. They’re so sure that they’re right that they spend the rest of the party trying to convince everyone else that they solved the mystery. They are now missing the party because the box has consumed them. Their sole purpose is now wrapped in their own speculative thoughts about the box. Moral of the story: you at a party, enjoy the party and forget about the box. You can’t understand it and when you try you’re just making things up.
Whatever spiritual elements there are to this world, I will either find out or never know. But I will never figure it out by speculating and I would rather enjoy the “party” rather than obsessing about whether I have a spirit or not.
To bring to topic back to Dyer, he basically claims that leading a spiritual life improves your survivability in life. He says that by connecting with the “source” that you find “abundance” (i.e., you get what you need to aid your survival) as well as peace of mind. (Peace of mind comes when you quit focusing on survival.) I disagree. I have never witnessed anyone gaining peace of mind through spiritual living and certainly those who survive the best among us usually don’t get there by focusing on the spirit–unless they’re a scheming televangelist, which actually means they’re focusing on survival–money–and so are back to the former. In fact, people who focus on the spirit tend to have the most difficulty on the surviving front. I don’t see abundance following spirituality as Dyer claims.
If there is a purpose to our lives, it is not for us to know; it is certainly not for me to know otherwise I would just know. I much rather ignore the box and just enjoy the party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 14th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Ah, yes. The box. What does it mean?
Well, we know this much—the box is definitley there. This we know is true. So the truth, so far, is that there is a box.
We also know that if we choose to ignore the box, which is our free will, the box will still be there.
We also know that when we reached out to this box, it left us. So that right there tells me that I should not go to that box if I need something. I should not go to that box if I want to put something into it. It will leave me if I try.
So, therefore—JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS TRUE DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD PUT YOUR FAITH IN IT.
Is the box true because other people saw it? Doesn’t matter. If thier backs were turned and they missed the box, would that make it less true? Doesn’t matter. I saw it.
But being true and being good for me are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
It was just another box. Even though is was what it was. So it sounds like we agree on this particular box. What we deduced as truth we did without trying to convince anyone else. And we also didn’t listen to anyone else.
A good box is one you can put things in and take things out of. It won’t leave you when you need it.
Faith in this box would have been misplaced, even though the box was truely there. And whose yardstick did we need to determine that?
Where the hell am I going with all this?
Instead of ignoring the box altogether, it would be better to make a judgement on wheather or not this box is good for me or bad for me. Don’t make a judgement on wheather the box is truely there. Then walk away, with or without the truth. Even if Wayne Dyer is still trying to figure it out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 15th, 2007 at 6:06 am
So I asked the host of the party: “Just what the hell is in that box, anyway?”
He said “Hee hee…nothing at all.”
Suddenly, a cat jumped out of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 15th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
“Taaa Daaa!”
Now I’m cracking up! Y’know, a disappearing litter box would be less embarrassing at parties.
But should we put our faith in the crap that’s in the box?
Hahahahaha!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 15th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Just in case anybody’s a little confused by my last comment, it was sort of a ‘quantum’ joke (think Schrodinger).
My point was: if anything is possible in the Universe, then anything at all could be in the party box so everybody is correct.
I still think Dyer’s full of beans, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 15th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Ha! LOL! Yes, Dyer does not have a firm grasp of the collapsing wave function, or any physics for that matter. His interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is that the observer creates (manifests) the outcome. But that was not what Heisenberg meant and that is not how Plank, Bohrs, et al interpreted it. The problem is that spin and velocity cannot be measured at the same time. They’re mutually exclusive. That’s all. Therefore, when measuring for a wave you will get wave results because of the way you have to disturb the subject, not because that is what you expect or think of or believe in. And you will get particle results when tested another way.
The Copenhagen interpretation, which has been the official one for over sixties years, says quantum effects are because the observer disturbs the subject matter in order to test it and some things such as light are so small that there is no way to test it without disturbing it in an extreme way.
It is not about the observer “manifesting” what he thinks or expects. Scientists have a field day with Dyer and Chopra’s quantum explanations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 15th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
To all those scientists, I ask: have you not heard of Einstein? Are you aware of his beliefs? As far as my understanding goes, his understanding of the universe – and his open, exploring way of thinking and connecting dots – allowed him to make great scientific discoveries -
and lead him to the belief in God; an abosolute over-arching intelligent source.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 15th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I am aware of Einstein’s beliefs. I’m also aware of his science. I am also aware of Richard Feynman, Paul Dirac, Francis Crick, Thomas Edison, and a host of other brilliant scientists who had no use for religion. I also know famous scientists who believe in the paranormal and UFOs. Argument by famous scientist can prove just about anything you want.
And I think you have it backwards! Einstein said that his love of truth and beauty in physics had its origins in religion, not that his physics led him to his very pantheistic relgion. However, if you can find religion in a Lorentz transform, I’d be very excited
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 15th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Wasn’t Einstein the one that was smart enough to build an atomic bomb—but never could figure out that darned hairbrush.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 15th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Einstein is to Dyer as:
Ferrari is to skateboard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 15th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Hmmm. Interesting. Fun. Here’s what I often think: scientists who are atheists are frightened control freaks who like to imagine that they know everything that there is to know AT THIS POINT IN TIME. And anything that they haven’t figured out – either isn’t (the worst sort of scientist) – or just hasn’t been figured out by SCIENCE yet. K. Have I riled anybody up yet? Not TRYING to, honest
.
The thing is, the truth is – there are many ways to do and experience what we understand to be the same thing. For example; owls, hawks, hummingbirds, a certain type of spider, airplanes etc. are all able to “fly” through the air (for miles). Yet, they all do it differently. (Especially that cute little spider who spins a long thread of web and catches a current.)
Isn’t a scientist turning science into some sort of dogmatic religion of his/her own when s/he asserts it’s THE answer, THE ONLY answer, etc.?
When, in fact, it is only one way of doing something?
I wish I had all of the answers. I don’t. However, I know for sure that science does not. And a belief and God, and a belief in spiritual principles, is NOT religion. From a human who often feels that she flies like that little spider with the long thread of web; I can attest that those beliefs are often developed over a long time of personal experience.
Last but not least – oh no!!!!!!! – although I am not a psychic (and I don’t play one on t.v.) – I have actually been psychic. And, fortunately or unfortunately, during different years of my life -quite frequently. (What would be the odds of me walking up to someone in the ocean at Bermuda {and feeling a bit crazy for doing it, but a gutt instinct told me too}, asking said person if she had found a camera case (with all of my credit cards etc in it) – and having her be the one who actually did find it – hours earlier, miles away?
The truth is, having felt overwhelmed, I wasn’t even going to ask anyone – but just felt this sense that I was supposed to ask her?
Now – where was my psychic ability when I lost my camera case (with all I.D., credit cards etc.)? Well, that is extremely easy to answer!! It was with Einstein’s HAIRBRUSH!
Sometimes, although I do not know this for a fact, I think that being open to things beside the little halls in your brain sometimes makes you forget the little halls in your brain – and you lose things. The more creative I am, the more psychic experiences I usually have – and the more difficult it is to remember whether it is tuesday or wednesday.
Now, when my life is all organized in little behavior and thinking boxes, I KNOW THE DATE, TIME, MINUTE… you get the point.
None of us know it all. When you destroy what you don’t know (the unknown) because you don’t know it – well, that just seems like close-minded, fearful… (please don’t be offended)… childishness.
Don’t be afraid of the dark.
OPEN UP.
Forget to brush your teeth – if it allows you to accept that there is great mystery. Don’t obsess over that magic box in the room – but do enjoy how it stretches you. It comes and goes and you can’t control it??? Oh, come on you (atheist, I have to destroy whatever I don’t know) scientists – have some fun knowing that there is more – SO MUCH MORE – to life than what we can quantify, qualify, score and statistically analyze.
Atheists, FREAK YOURSELVES OUT – become… AGNOSTIC!!!
I’m just trying to improve y’all quality of life.
PS I hated disecting a frog in middle school.
Happily.
“If this is to see what a dead, leathered frog looks like when cut open – fine. But why not use a model? If I want to know anything about a LIVE frog – I will spend time with one.
Now, really, everyone, HAVE A GOOD DAY & NIGHT; EMBRACE THE MYSTERY.
It will lead you to more joy.
PSSS??? (Where’s that camera, hairbrush? Run on comment?) I liked all those smiley faces in above comment. Right back at cha!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 16th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Oh, like I didn’t ramble enough already … but before I really head off for some night-night; a response to John Q. statement: “I have never witnessed anyone gaining peace of mind through spiritual living.”
Have you studied the life of Mother Teresa of Calcutta? Have you ever looked at a photograph of her eyes; or the joy on her face when she’s laughing? And in terms of abundance, she created an absolute orchard of abundance around her in terms of love, connections, etc. etc. etc.
As far as I’m aware of; she also passed in an incredably peaceful way as well (something I’ve witnessed a couple of times in my life with human beings who have lived very loving, spiritual-goal oriented lives).
Thanks for the chance to let it all out!
Love, peace, and mystery…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 16th, 2007 at 12:49 am
I have learned something from Dr. Dyer. And I think that lesson is this: You will never become a Martial Arts Master when you take lessons from a yellow belt.
Seek out the masters and learn from them.
I don’t want to take one good line from this religion, and another from that religion, and so on—then decide I’m a big ball of light.
Don’t need money, don’t want fame. I want the friggin’ black belt!
“I KNOW THE TRUTH!!! I KNOW THE TRUTH!!! AND YOU CAN, TOO!!! JUST SEND THREE EASY PAYMENTS OF $29.95 TO…”
Here’s the real deal people, and I hope you get this: The real Master will just give you the free gift.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 16th, 2007 at 1:02 am
And to havAgr8Day:
Thank you for hating disecting. No, seriously. I agree. If you’re going to learn about life, don’t inspect the dead. And I happen to like frogs;)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 16th, 2007 at 9:50 am
To havAgr8Day: Regarding your comment to my “I have never witnessed anyone gaining peace of mind through spiritual living,” I mis-stated my point.
You’re right. Of course there are those who find comfort and peace through religion and spirituality. No question about it. (Although, I don’t think the warm cuddly external way in which you described it is actual peace of mind, but that’s debatable.)
What I should have said was that I find that most people who get on the spirituality track are looking for something else beyond this life. The very fact that they go searching means they’re discontented with the struggle of survival. Personally, I’m not discontent so I’m not searching for anything–I don’t need salvation or the promise of a better existence. I rather like this life and if I don’t have an immortal soul that’s fine with me. But that’s just me. I do not need to have everyone believe the same as me. (Funny, Dyer says the same but spends his whole adult life trying to get everyone one his belief system.)
So, that really was my point: The “search for purpose” is the language of the disconent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 16th, 2007 at 9:54 am
BTW, that “Ferrari is to a skateboard” comment by nez is hilarious!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 16th, 2007 at 10:19 am
On other point to havAgr8Day: I think you’re projecting a personal image when you described scientists as control freaks. You are generalizing to the point that borders on stereotyping.
I work within the science community and have some published articles on science, so I have some first-hand knowledge. Scientists do not imagine they know everything. Absolutely not. What scientists abhor is speculation without predictability. If science uncovers a mystery , then Dyer, Chopra and others will claim, “that mystery indicates there’s a God.” That has been said throughout written history: if we don’t understand it, it must be supernatural. But faith is not a measurement of truth, it an acceptance of what anyone says without measuring its truth. Faith by definition says, “I will take what someone else tells me as truth without checking it.” Science is nothing more than a process. A process to weed out untruths. Faith has no place in such a process.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 16th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I thought nez’s comment was hillarious too.
And so succinct!!!
I think the fruit of a good (for me, this includes spiritually good) life is experienced in the present – it shapes each moment and day and guides your decision making. If love (truth and honest sort of being essential to that) practiced until it is second nature – life istself seems to grow in entirely different ways. (Again, don’t have all the answers.)
I like Dyer personally – but I don’t think he is the big ball of light. I think he’s just one of the sign posts jumping up and down shouting “there’s a big ball of light people!” Hopefully, he puts some gasoline into engines so that people can head off in a better direction. Or not. I’m not the big ball of light judging it all
.
Mother Teresa said something to the effect of “I don’t judge, because during the time I am judgeing, I can’t be loving.” (Love as an action.)
Mystery. Beauty. It’s all around us. Many ways of enjoying it, growing with it – while we are alive.
AND, as someone who has a BELOVED brother-in-law who is an AMAZING SCIENTIST – I know that many scientists are indeed extremely creative, and very open. (NOTE: before marrying my sis and knowing me – he was an atheist
and his life was much duller.) Now, the curiosity and open-ness that he extends toward science he extends towards all of life.
I was only trying to NUDGE the scared/denying/controlling/atheist scientists who fit that profile into opening up a big. Just think it will make a better world. (Knowing full well there are scientists who range the gamut spiritually.)
The last thing about Dyer: he is helping PBS when he tries to do those fundraisers. Thus the price-tag. And… I like Public Broadcasting….
Now, headin off to find Nez for that lesson in succinctness……..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 16th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Sooo, that’s the enchilada…?
One taco to go, please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 16th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“All right! All you idiots fall out!!!”, yelled the drill sargeant to his soldiers. The squad quickly dispersed—except for one lone recruit.
The sarge stalked up to him, stopped, and raised one eyebrow.
The private spoke up, “There sure were a lot of ‘em huh, sir?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 16th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
havAgr8Day, you make some good points. But do you really think Dyer is non-judgmental? I know that is what he preaches, but doesn’t he judge everything conventional? (In just about every book he devotes a large section to explaining what is wrong with the world.) Doesn’t he judge things by labeling certain behaviors as “low energy” vs. “high energy?” Isn’t that just a disguised value judgment?
Here is some standard garden variety Dyer logic: “In my world everything is perfect. That is a powerful statement.” Then, “conventional wisdom is a big lie” ["Your Sacred Self: The Big Lie"].
Fact: Dyer does not really believe everything is perfect because by definition it means it cannot be improved. He covers this with little riddles such as, “Everything is perfect including your desire to improve it.” That is the same paradoxical reasoning as with, “This statement is a lie.” It’s double-talk. And he has decided that his purpose in life is improving just about everything about you. Everything from subtle statements you make that imply blame, to how your thinking process developed, to how you respond to certain circumstances, etc. Basically, Dyer really preaches that everything is wrong with you and you need a total makeover. Everything is wrong with you because society–especially American culture–has programmed you as such. And he is here to deprogram your conventional thinking patterns; to help you become a no-limits person. Why? Because you have so many limitations you didn’t realize it until he told you. Now you know how imperfect you are–but he’ll contradict himself with, “you’re already perfect”–you can set yourself on the path of not just self-actualization but enlightenment.
So, unless you live the way he describes–never feeling guilty or worried, never acting in conflict, allowing yourself to be pulled into activity rather than pushing into it, etc.–you are not enlightened.
Dyer constructs a framework such that if you don’t fit it you can’t be enlightened. So, regardless of what he claims in the end he is just as dogmatic as any religion.
And you have to ask yourself: How can someone with such a sloppy work trail be believed that he has found enlightenment by a unique syntheses of ideas?
By sloppy I mean:
- he wrote your Erroneous Zones in 2 weeks
- he wrote Wisdom of the Ages in 60 days
- he teams up with frauds like Chopra and Sai Baba because he doesn’t take the time to background check them
- he shows little understanding about physics and then uses his misunderstanding to make profound claims
He simply does not do his homework before he speaks. Someone who shows such a lack of mastery of ideas in my opinion cannot be enlightened.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 17th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Your reference to Chopra is interesting. I first heard of him when I read a novel he wrote about Armageddon. He made reference to Ash Wednesday as the Wednesday of Holy Week. It occurs, in fact, seven weeks before Holy Week at the beginning of Lent. Talk about good research! Only about a billion Christians knew that little fact. And he is a religious teacher? Ha!
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 17th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I’m going to throw a few rocks in this pond and watch the standing wave pattern that develops.
Think about this:
If there is only one universe (or God) then it contains in itself everything that has existed, exists, or has the potential to exist. Nothing can be created in this universe without creating the complete opposite of it at the same time. We may not have the “instruments” (physical or mental) to detect the creation of the opposite, but it would have to be created in order to keep the balance.
If you create a positive energy a negative energy is created automatically. They have to add up to zero or nothingness. The universe itself is nothingness yet from it everything can be created as long as the complete opposite is also created.
If you want to create Good, you can, but Bad is also created at the same time. If you want Truth, you can have that too, but Untruth is created as well.
So all those who are looking for the Truth are searching only for half of the Whole. The “scientist” is observing only half of the universe and wants to explain the workings of the Whole universe. He can not. The religious is chasing after the Good and hopes to know God. He can not.
Everyone wants to polarize the universe or God. It does not have polarity, charge, mass, energy, etc. etc.. For God there is no Good or Bad. We have created those concepts out of the nothingness of the universe. We have polarized the universe in our minds and picked half of it to represent the Whole.
Rather then search for the Truth we should search for the Whole. We should become Wholly by understanding the Whole and not just one part of it.
It was not dark before “let there be light”. The concept of light and dark had not been manifested in the universe just yet. As soon as light was created, darkness was created as well. God did not create anything. God and Universe are the same thing. They are both nothing and everything at the same time. Light and darkness, time and timeless, etc..
…..at the end you will find NOTHING, but will you be wise enough to realize that you have found EVERYTHING…….
Did I disturb the pond with my thoughts?
Now I will just watch the standing wave pattern resonating the universe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 17th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
He talked bout the 80-20 rule. I wonder if he’s given away 80% of the millions he’s made on all his other books and tapes? Randy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 17th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Zero, I don’t know why, but I didn’t FEEL what you were writin’.
Regarding Dyer; I am fairly uninformed regarding his writing. I wasn’t thrilled with YOUR ERRONEOUS ZONES (although, you have to admit, he did some good “manifesting” with that if he wrote it within two weeks and had the outcome he received!).
However, the PBS fundraising effort I watched of his was on INSPIRATION. I found it to be completely, and utterly similar to my own experience with creativity. Astoundingly so.
When I watched that talk (complete with his guests), I was SPELLBOUND. I actually doodled the title for an upcoming book without knowing it while I watched it (I don’t write self-help books btw).
Anyway, the truth he described about inspiration -
has definitely been experienced by me anyway, as profound, uplifting TRUTH in terms of my creative life – and my evolution as a person.
I’m not going around talking to people about what I’m experiencing though – too busy using all the energy to write/create more (oh, and blab on this it appears
.
Anyway, I’m thinking that NEZ has all the answers. “Sooo, that’s the enchillada? One taco to go please.”
OMGosh, I think perhaps we should all follow NEZ as the great simplifier of all thought – a new cult perhaps???
I guess one more thought – maybe I do want to respond to what zero wrote: perhaps we can pick what polarity we want to dwell and develop in most. A lovely writer (sorry, can’t remember her name and mutilate her lovely quote) wrote something like “When you’re searching for glad things, it’s hard to find anything else.”
Sort of like – where’s the love in this moment – there cannot also be apathy in this exact moment between us.
Nez????
Xox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 17th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
sorry bout sooooooooo many typos. That’s sort of the way it is with me though
unless i force myself to proof – and that’s only for manuscripts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
“Doctor” Dyer’s primary intent is to sell his books, tapes, etc., and to promote his daughter’s singing career.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
PH’s explication of Dyer makes me think of the Aliens in “Invasion.” Basically collectivism and denigration to the point of endangerment of the physical: A mixture of Heaven’s Gate, 1984, and the Soviet Union. As objectivists have put it, you can’t talk to people (such as Dyer) who insist on putting their wishes and fantasies above reality. But the new age has a built in defense mechanism of irrationalism when asked, no matter how nicely, to account for itself.
As for those who insist Dyer’s seminars and other costly products “help,” I suppose lobotomies help some desperate individuals. Actually lobotomies are a short cut to “enlightenment” or “in Spirit(edness)” that I’ve often wondered why new agers don’t take.
At least fundamentalist religions have absolutes that force consistence.
I’m worried about where these gurus are taking society in teaching the desperate and confused to stop thinking and stop asserting themselves. The only way to deal with the cognitive dissonance they so manipulatively put out there is to kill your brain in some way. This is why in London workers are suing an American Co., in London, who sent it’s workers on some sort of new age retreat. This kind of forced cognitive dissonance actually caused workers mental break downs and detroyed personal relationships.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
I liked your comments, Mr. J. Q. public. I remember thinking in one of his useless PBS plugs that according to his [il]logic, suicidal homeless people must be the most enlightened people on earth!! Then I realized he’s not a cute aging hippy parent but a bad sadistic parent-a mommie dearest dressed like Kurtz in “Apocalypse Now.” And then I realized, evil separatist individualist coporeal being that I am, I could actually turn the TV off and resist the brain washing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
wow “zero” that was pretentious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 19th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Have to agree with Zero but unfortunately, that explanation doesn’t satisfy most people’s need to align themselves with a black or white reality. Look how easy it was for Bush to promote the “evil doer” label on the Muslims or “axis of evil.” It makes it so much easier if someone will do the thinking for us and label what’s good and bad in the world. “True Believer” is an excellent book on the subject of how people come to believe things as true.
Interesting that Dr. Dyer even quotes the Tao saying, “the Tao that can be spoken of is not the tao.” He didn’t mention it also goes on to say, “those who speak about the Tao, do not know it, those who know the Tao, do not speak about it.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 19th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
How could he afford to live a “spartan life” in Maui if not for his millions? Isn’t there something a little disingenuous about helping PBS with its fundraising efforts and then telling us to rid ourselves of our possessions? Maybe we should all send our shoes to PBS!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 19th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
My thoughts on apathy are as follows:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 19th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
When you create a truth, an untruth is created as well. hmmm… Those who are seeking truth are only searching for half of the whole. Hmmm.
I seek truth, but yet somehow I don’t seek lies. But did I create the desire for someone else to seek a lie? I’m guessing no.
I think we all know what an untruth is instinctively. Why would you seek out a lie? What is there to gain?
Well, ok, I guess it helps sometimes to know how not to do something.
Creating good is good, and when I give my dog a treat just for the hell of it, I don’t think I created another dog owner giving thier dog an ass-whoopin’ just for the hell of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 19th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
When you create something(good or bad), you don’t always create the opposite. You just know how to. Weather you do or not is another action entirely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 19th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Tell me, ZerO, if I sat around and did nothing, what would that create. I’m gonna say nothing.
BUT WAIT!!!
The opposite of “nothing” would seem to be “something.”
Just something to think about. Oops, I mean nothing to think about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 19th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Okay, I’m in love with Nez.
And Frog – I like you too. I mean, sitting right in front of my desk is a book with a picture of Kermit on the cover that’s entitled IT’S NOT EASY BEING GREEN. AWWW.
It’s not ez being human.
And about those Europeans (really?) suing an American company for taking them on a retreat and exposing them to New Age thoughts that caused mental breakdowns etc. – I have to say, after I experienced enough psychic experiences (with real – still living witnesses
) – I tried to look into the subject – as if I’d find a simple answer. I didn’t. However, I remember finding a book about the government’s study of esp, and training regarding theta brain waves – etc. And one of the book’s points was that there was a high degree of mental breakdowns in people who experienced the training and results, without having some sort of construct for handling it ahead of time.
I’ve never tried to be New Age – whatever that is. My experiences almost always are linked to creativity or relaxation (driving, swimming, etc).
However, I think science and spirituality do actually blend and that the same principles at times can be applied to both. You can’t have a few psychic experiences and jump to the conclusion that you’re psychic.
It’s easier to accept reality – ‘sometimes I have psychic experiences; and this makes me think, or know as much as I know anything, that there is some sort of sixth sense, etc’ – then to deny the reality of it. However, like someone on a bicycle using training wheels – WAIT!!! I just had a NEZ moment:
Psychic experiences are too enlightenment
as training wheels are to motorcycles.
I’m so pleased with myself.
Again, I think everyone needs to try to stay open. Accept what real experiences they have. Assume we’re all imperfect. And that the only perfect thing is love – which it seems to me we all know when we feel it.
Alrighty, now I have to get back to other sorts of writing.
PS I love envisioning Frog taking care of his dog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 19th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Oh, one last thing. This doesn’t have anything to do with Dyer. I stick by my feeling that from the little I’ve seen, it’s been positive.
However, in terms of the whole concept of “manifesting” – I think that is very short sighted. If you look at any great humanitarians, who manifested huge shifts in human consciousness – Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Mendella etc. (I’m avoiding stating super religious figures) – they all suffered. For example, Martin Luther King bettered the lives for almost all of us; and died by a gunshot.
Spiritual living – is more about manifesting abundance on a human level (what is good and right for all people) – and getting rid of exploitation etc. – then it is about “manifesting” whatever you want.
HOWEVER (deep breath for all my run-ons) I generally think that individuals who try to help others re-shape their thinking and open their mind to new possibilities in their life are most often trying to help them.
I’ve seen people live in mud puddles for years when the entire, gorgeous world was right outside their door.
Good wishes for all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 19th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
To havAgr8Day:
I have one of those wiener dogs, and his name is Frank(get it?) if that helps your vision:)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 19th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I agree, we are not perfect, and we will all stand before Gods perfect law, do you think you will mesure up…..i don’t think so, that is unless you except His perfect gift. By the way, love is not a feeling, God is love, and He sent his son Jesus to pay for your sin with his blood, now thats love!!!! Budda and the like have some nice things to say about how to get along with each other in this life but i hope your not counting on them or Mr.Dyer’s all paths lead to heaven jargen to get you there! Chritianity is the most logical world view period!!!! For anything to exist there must be something eternal that has always been and always will be. God and “the universe” can not be the same thing! The universe is a created thing just like you if you would quit trying to be your owne god and submit to the one and only who loves you, life would make much more sense. Don’t take my word for it, God gave you free will and you can keep on trying your way for the rest of eternity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 8:07 am
I agree. God is not “the universe”. I don’t pray to “the universe”. And if the universe was ever destroyed, there would still be God. If the earth were to perish, I would perish, Frank would perish, Dyer would perish, nez would perish, but God would live on and on and on.
God is good. God is love.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Agreed.
Jim Henson was not a muppet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Are we still in Kansas?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Dyer, like any teacher, puts the idea out there and what you get from it is very personal. I think he is trying to give direction to those who have no direction. What have I taken from him? Guilt and worry are useless, because you cannot change the past and you have no control over the future. We are all the same to God. Hand yourself over to God or the creator (whatever you want to call him) and you will find inner peace. I think it is sad that some feel the need to find as much negative as possible. So what if he’s been married and divorced. I know ministers of churches who have been divorced. His message is one of acceptance and equality. Kind of what I see in the bible. Did it ever occure to anyone that when Jesus said I am the way, he meant his way is the way, and we like Jesus are all children of God? We all come from the source of the creator, and we will return to that source, it’s called heaven in our small minds. It’s pure love, not a palace with gold and rubies. Get over yourselves, and remember when you point your finger at someone the rest of your fingers are pointing back at you!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
In response to the “I think we all know what an untruth is instinctively” statement made by frog. While I understand what you’re getting at, that we often sense lies in what others tell us, untruth here is really a broader construct. You’re taking a narrow meaning of it. That is, we probably all agree that that objective states exist regardless of our opinions or expectations. (Sorry, but I need to go philosophical to explain myself.) Because without external objectivity, there are no axiomatic points of agreement among any one; everything is epistemological. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss because it all what you say it is a no one can be wrong. (That would make racists’ views equally valid, which they clearly are not.) Everything would be simply what you interpret it to be.
I do not believe that. I believe clearly that the universe operates in a consistent way on which our thoughts and opinions have no bearing. Therefore, there are “truths” that are independent to us. How the universe came about and its physical laws are things that have evolved without human opinion or influence.
With that premise our endeavor to understand our world then rests on finding those objective truths. Dyer is acting as a guide to understanding our earthly plight. But there are correct and incorrect explanations. These are the truths that are being discussed here, not if someone is lying or not. And the “sense” about them is usually wrong. There is no way our common sense tells us we are in the corner of this huge galaxy colliding with another galaxy (M31), spinning at an amazing 18,000 miles per minute around an axial point while swirling around a large nuclear fusion reactor. No, your senses tell you the world is flat, unmoving and that the stars revolve around you. You cannot sense objective truth. It must be examined to be uncovered.
Dyer is explaining how the universe works to us. His whole explanation of “the source” brushes on the details of how it works and what it is. For example, in his latest special he declares unequivocally, “there is no violence in the source.” Really? Is that objective truth? But there is so much evidence to the contrary. If one believes nature is a reflection of “the source,” or at least created by it (and he has stated so), then an astounding amount of violence is built into the instincts of its creatures. (He attempts to brush it off with cherry picked examples, and ignores examples that contradict him.) I’m not talking about the horrific things man does, but the general thread that we see throughout nature: creatures are built to react to strangers in violent ways. In fact, the variations of violence is staggering. On top of that, “the source” creates an endless parade of killer diseases and natural disasters. That seems odd for a “source” that knows no violence. There are very few examples of love and caring in nature. Most of “caring” in nature seems to occur with its own offspring, not with its neighbors. (And I’m not talking about ecological harmony, but the instinctual behaviors of living creatures.) It seems obvious, then, “the source” would have built the instincts to coddle and be gentle since that is how it is. Or so we’re told that is how it is.
My point is that he is making a putative claim of objective truth, for which scientific methods are squarely designed. He is saying, “I know the nature of the universe and I know that things manifest themselves from a spiritual world.” If that is true, then tell me why do scientific methods do not apply? Why should he not have to prove what he is claiming? Isn’t that the responsible thing to do?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Response to clsr: yes, he is putting out an idea to do as you will with it. But with that comes the responsibility of making sure you are right. Plus he goes far beyond just giving direction to others. With the way you have framed putting out an idea, then applying it to, say, college text books we could say, “oh, well. It may not be correct, but it comes from the heart and the author was very well intentioned.” When you jump up on the soapbox, you must be right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I find the posts very thought provoking!
Here are my 2 cents. In the end, I feel we all believe what we each choose to and as a result we find the evidence to support our beliefs whether we take the scientific, religious, or new age point of view. When we find ourselves dissatisfied with our life experience in some way (or are driven by a desire to improve on it) then we are willing to take an open/critical look at our beliefs and in doing so we are willing to examine and listen to the beliefs of others whether they be Dr. Dyer, our favorite church preacher/pastor/minister, rabbi, guru, or any other person that publicly lectures on spiritual/life beliefs. In the end we take on our version of the truth from someone or something else “out there” since most of us are not born “knowing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” since the moment of our birth (hence we go to church, buy books, listen to speakers, etc. to get the truth we seek).
I respect Dr. Dyer and rather than take a stance that we either “have to” buy his entire philosophy or reject all of it: I personally find it more beneficial to consider what he (and what anyone else I choose to listen to) has to say carefully, submit it to my life experience and my heart for guidance and then keep what serves me and discard what does not. I like some of what Dr. Dyer says and find it useful and so I take it in. The rest goes in one ear and out the other and yes I have actually laughed at some of his comments (in disagreement) while being truly inspired and touched by many of “his” teachings (most of which I have heard from other sources way beforehand which he acknoledges in his quotes but I still appreciate the great reminders). I was just remembering Tony Robbins (in his very successful “Unlimited Power” tape series) years ago using the analogy of a computer needing to be “conditioned” by repeating the same procedure over and over until the computer “gets it”. Tony tried to make the point that we need to repeat to ourselves what we want to change in our life’s (his “point” being that if a computer needs repetition then imagine how much more we need it!). This was opposed to the view of NLP which implied/believed that we humans could be programmed like a computer and would never revert to old unwanted behaviors. As a computer programmer for 20 years, I found his computer analogy of “conditioning” laughable but still I can discern the difference between a computer and my personal life and I didn’t reject the point he was making because his lack of technical knowledge caused him to use a poor example for what is otherwise a valid point. Likewise, that our perspective on any experience is more responsible for the nature of our experience than what is happening to us “out there” is a valid point that we need to remind ourselves of constantly of because it is easy to forget (whether Dr. Dyers analogy of Quantum Physics proving that “when you change the way you look at things, what you look at changes” is technically correct or not). To a person who wishes to die, being shot at is an act of kindness. To a person that is ready to or even unafraid to die, being shot at is a forgivable act, to someone who really wants to live or is terrified of dying, being shot at is an act of murder, wrong, and an unforgivable act. The point being that we may not get to choose what “happens to us” in this life but we can choose what we want to make of anything that can potentially happen to us in this life beforehand and this will greatly determine our experience of it.
I agree with the some of the observations expressed in the posts by some Christian writers that we shouldn’t make Dr. Dyer into “the answer” or bet our soul’s destiny on EVERYTHING he has to say. I also believe we shouldn’t believe anyone just because they call themselves Christians and can quote Bible scriptures to drive a point that is both judgmental and unloving and who claim an exclusive domain over ALL TRUTH. I believe the highest and noblest use of the Bible is to spread a message of love, forgiveness and peace which are the essence of the spirit of Jesus Christ. I also believe Jesus Christ to be a much better role model and source of the truth than Dr. Dyer and I think Dr. Dyer would agree with this statement as well. If Jesus was speaking on public television then I would first and foremost tune in to what Jesus had to say and I suspect Dr. Dyer would too. In the meantime, until this option becomes available we all freely and willingly listen to mere mortals interpret and “teach us the truth” all the time, whether it be on PBS or Sunday service.
We are all on this journey of life together trying to figure it out as we go.
As I write this post I just realized that just like Dr. Dyer we all have a deep desire not only to “learn the truth” but by writing and posting our beliefs on this site we prove that we also (just like Dr. Dyer) have a deep need/desire to “teach our truth” as well, whatever that truth happens to be.
I wish you luck in your own pursuit and hope I have just as much luck in mine!
Joe
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
A list of Dyer claims that go beyond just advice and which cannot be substantiated (I can back all of these with specific references to his works if you like):
- that when people have sex and yell “oh God” it is because they are really attempting to get closer to God during the act. (Say what??? Yes, he really claims that in one of his books.)
- that “ah” is the sound that created this universe and therefore is why it exists in the word for God in all languages. (Actually, there are many Hindu gods that do not have the sound “ah” in them at all, but once again he did not do his homework)
- we are not separate entities
- clouds can be moved with the mind
- one can enter another’s dream (he says he and his wife have done this)
- the dream world is reality and our everyday life is not
- disease is mostly a function of negative thinking
- the universe helps those who as for help
- the universal source is all-loving and non-violent
- there is no authoritarian God as Christianity claims (I’m not religious, but my point is he can’t substantiate it and is just another of his silly speculations)
- you help others with nothing more than good thoughts
- we are all connected in the spiritual world
- when you sleep, it is your soul detaching from your body
- seratonin levels increase when a person is in a positive energy field witnessing a positive action to the same amount as medical anti-depressants
- that he knows the level of God’s love (this is in reference to his Shia story. While it is a good story, I do like it, his conclusion is another example of his tendency to overgeneralize. He states that those boys playing baseball, “rose to the level of God.” Has anyone seen God do what those little leaguers did? I’m more inclined to say the rose to a level above God, but since I do not know anything about God including its existence, I won’t say anything.)
- Worrying is not helpful. (I believe this to be overly generalized. While one should not over worry, it can be a positive motivator to action. Worrying can lead to more productive lives.)
- Guilt is not helpful. (Again, the same response I have to worrying.)
- All the world needs is love to function properly. (This is akin to young kids who believe the can “live of their love for one another” and wind up poor)
- Branches of trees don’t fight, why should the branches of mankind? (Why did he pick branches over, say, colony ants which instinctively war with one another? Or gorillas who have been witnessed in the wild to rape their females? He needs to explain what were more like branches than gorillas.)
- That forcing things causes what you want to escape your grasp like grabbing water. (How is using force to do something like water? Why did he pick water over, say, coal? When you apply force to coal you get a diamond.)
- The natural world evolves without force. (How does he know what is behind nature?)
- That the mysteries that science cannot yet answer are supernatural and science just won’t accept that fact
- That a picture of his grandson in the bath smiling ear to ear is what our soul looks like. (I’m not being literal here. What I’m saying is how does he know that his grandson throwing an tantrum is not what our soul looks like? Or when he is frustrated? He has a whole myriad of emotions to capture but the source and our souls are only made of happiness.)
- that our reality is is a manifestation of our thoughts
- that your inner child is closer to the source than, say, your outer adult
- that children are closer to God than adults (Since in Dyer’s world you do not need to back your claims, then I claim this is God punishing of adults through old age.)
- that the ego works against us and that enlightenment can only be found through spirit (basically, this is an argument that focusing on spiritual needs trumps focusing on survival needs. The irony is if I focus entirely on spiritural that is what I’ll become: dead.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
To joeG: I like your explanation. Well said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Thanks JohnQPublic!
You also express your thoughts very well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
O. Now I’m tired.
I was awestruck at the beauty of Joe G’s comments.
WOW.
I love knowing that Frog’s dog is named Frank.
And I still think Nez has A GIFT.
But now, I just have to second everything Joe G. said. (Even psychic or other sorts of experiences are better sifted through that sieve -
what I’ve already thought anyway.)
AND, John Q., I think I understand your concerns… your worried that Dyer’s words reach too far and could potentially hinder as opposed to help people? And perhaps that’s what drives you to be so anti-Dyer?
Oddly enough – and un-nervingly enough – my experiences back up a couple of what appear to be Dyer’s bizarre claims: I actually do believe our positive thoughts can help others (and vice-versa), we are all connected, and … that forcing things generally doesn’t work – not in the long run. But for the general framework of all of my thoughts – look loosely at (again) at Joe G. WOW. And I don’t think he had more than maybe two typos. WOW.
Also, for enjoyment of life – perhaps part of our great purpose – see Nez.
And whatever you do, make sure to walk a mile in another’s shoes – and don’t react, or over-react to your own fear – and burn somebody (anybody) at the stake.
Those are all random comments. From me.
(I don’t know if ya’ll feel it too – but seems to me there’s a lot of good stuff happening here.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
To JohnQPublic:
Thanks for the help. I do have a better understanding, now. I needed to grab my dictionary in order to see that(ha, ha), but I am now able to see the broader view.
And to JoeG:
Damn…Your post made me change some of my perspective for the better. I have learned something more about objectivity, and blah, blah, blah, blah—I can’t find the right words.
I think I’m trying to say thank you:)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
To JoeG:
If that is your two cents, I’ll gladly take a dollars worth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
To frog:
Forgot to say, to name your wiener dog Frank was genius.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 20th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
To havAgr8Day:
Thanks for your comments on my previous post. You made me laugh with your observation on the low number of typos and I’ll take the chance now to confess that I started writing directly on the space provided on this website but before I clicked on the “Post” button, I first copied everything to Word (like I am doing now) so I could run a spell check on it because I know otherwise I end up with way too many typos!
To frog:
I am glad that you found what I wrote helpful! You really made me laugh with the “blah, blah, blah, blah” part!!
To nez:
Thanks for your kind words. I started out intending to write just 2 cents worth but once I started writing, it just kept coming out so I guess I went over my allowance! (I have been known to do this…)
I really love this site because it showcases the dominant (and sometimes opposing) points of view in our country today and yet here we are, all of us (by far and for the most part) expressing our views in a very civilized and respectful way. Hopefully, this format can spread to other sites as well and rather than have conflict driven exchanges bent on personal attacks, opposing views can be presented in a way that enrich all of those who read it, just as reading all of your posts on this site has done for me.
THANK YOU.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 12:15 am
Re: Gary’s post: Are we in kansas anymore?
No… I’m thinkin’ we’re somewhere over the rainbow havin’ a love fest now
.
And I’m likin’ it!
If Nez, Frog (and Dog Frank), Joe G., and even John Q (who for some reason seems so thoughtful, but also wounded – by believing in Dyer too much? Not sure…), and even Dave Bacon
(for providing an accidental forum for this) all lived in the los angeles area – I’d invite y’all over for a barbecue (but no bacon Mr. Dr. Bacon – it would be strictly veggie – in honor of Froggie’s Frank {furter} 
.
Night night. Sweet dreaming…
PS the invite would be extended to everyone, not just those I named above – in honor of peace, love and great conversation
PSS I loved that Joe G. shared his typo truth.
See, still … WOW.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 7:47 am
I have to agree with the comments about the discourse here being civil. It is refreshing. And I certainly hope that my remarks that question religion or anything else are not taken as disrespect for the religious. And regarding my earlier compliment to joeG for a well stated rebuttal, that should not be confused for agreement as others have indicated here.
In response to havAgr8Day’s comment about what concerns me about Dyer: here it is in a nutshell. He sells Santa Claus in a bottle. What he does is akin to televangelists selling prayer cloths for $1,000. He takes what are basically a child’s wish and tells you it is real and is how the universe actually works. He makes things up and then writes them as facts. Federal consumer laws prevent us from making false advertising claims. I cannot create skin cream and then claim it cures skin cancer too unless I can prove it does so. Dyer claims disease can be overcome through correct thinking and positive field energies. But he doesn’t just claim it, he sells it for money. Deepak Chopra does the same with “quantum healing.” Therefore, I think this activity is as fraudulent as any other unproven claims for a product. I believe consumer laws should directly apply to these snake-oil salesmen. The fact that some, as in this discussion group, find useful information in it, is fine. I have no argument with these well-meaning folks anymore than I would have for a grandmother who was duped into buying fraudulent cancer-curing skin cream. But I do feel that people who buy into his nonsense are victims. They are being sold things they want to hear, not things that are proven to be effective.
So, my concern with Dyer is he is selling a fraudulent product through unproven claims. I do not have an argument with his victims, only sympathy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 8:19 am
To JohnQPublic:
My comments were not meant as a rebuttal as I was just expressing my personal views rather than addressing yours. I respect your views and my personal experience has led me to views that I know you would disagree with at this time so I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. Regarding the views you have presented, you made some good observations on some of Dr. Dyers points of view that you found objectionable that I wanted to comment on since as I mentioned before while I respect and appreciate Dr. Dyer for sharing his thoughts, I dont agree with EVERYTHING Dr. Dyer says. To keep the posts smaller, I will take one topic at a time and spread them out over the next few weeks.
EGO
When I look honestly at my life, I have realized how much trouble my EGO has gotten me into and how many mistakes I have made by acting only on its counsel and from its point of view so many times.
I also see that it has helped me many times and I have also come to realize that there is a reason for everything under the Sun and while I agree with Dr. Dyer that we really need to keep our ego on check since its concerns are usually only either material, exterior, or temporary, I also believe there is a reason why we have an ego to begin with and that instead of suppressing it, denying it, resisting it or fighting it, I believe that we are better of trying to understand when does having an Ego serve us and when does it not. I think making our Egos into the equivalent of Evil or something to be rejected altogether is fighting/resisting our own nature and results in an experience of self-defeat, guilt and condemnation. I say it is natural to have an ego since our egos are usually strongest during are earlier years and we all know why we call our second year of life, our “terrible twos” (me, I want, mine, give me, now…).
Someone I heard said that “our greatest faults are actually our greatest gifts – with the volume just too high” and I will never forget that. I think our Egos also fit this description. Our Egos help us experience what we come to experience in this life by ensuring that we are here long enough to experience it, by constantly reminding us to do all we can to “try” to protect ourselves. I include “try” in quotes because many times what it is attempting to protect us from is completely out of our control and often times it is not something we need to be protected from to begin with. With its concern for our safety in all major areas of this life (physical, emotional, financial, etc.), the Ego helps us develop much of the wisdom we call common sense (i.e. look both ways before crossing the street, be careful who you talk to, be careful who you do business with, etc.) which help us to experience this life. The thing with our ego is that it is not self-adjusting (like any other attribute of our lives) much like the volume during a movie that sometimes is too loud and sometimes it is too low so we have to keep an eye on it make sure our “protector” is not getting carried away and becoming paranoid, self-limiting, or self-defeating.
I believe that in addition to monitoring and adjusting the volume of our egos we also need to monitor and adjust the volume of that other side of us and that is our spiritual side. Our spirit’s needs are different than those of our Egos and its volume needs to be adjusted as well and more often than not I find that the volume of our egos are little too high and the volume of our spirit is too low). Rather than being closely aligned with the needs of our physical experience, our Spirit is concerned with the actual experience of life itself and our connection with the whole. Spirit is concerned with life in the big scheme of things (at a universal level and beyond the physical). I remember when Buddha went to the forest to become an ascetic and he denounced his Ego completely, not taking care of his body at all to the point of not eating for periods of time sometimes bordering on the verge of physical death. After several years of this, he realized that this “way” was extremist and while he previously embarked on this path as a way of denouncing the needs of the ego to focus on the needs of his spirit, he found that the best way was what he referred to as “the middle way”. His analogy was that if you don’t tighten the string of a stringed instrument (like a fiddle) enough, then you get no sound. If you tighten it too much then it will break.
When both the needs of our spirit and the needs of our ego are being met then I believe we are in balance. Having said this, I see much of the work for me is to help my ego see things differently often times since many times my ego thought it was protecting me while it was actually mistaken in the past and it actually caused me unnecessary pain. So the work for me is to adjust the prescription lenses my ego sees life through so it can see clearly what it is looking at and also to adjust its volume so it is not too loud or too low and it can do for me what it was intended to do.
I don’t want to fight my ego, I don’t want to do completely without it in this life on planet Earth and I don’t want to be controlled by it either so the only sane option I see at this time is to work with it and also question it when I get a feeling I don’t want, to make sure it is not misleading me into an unnecessary painful/stressful experience like so many times in the past while also giving it the benefit of the doubt and checking things out in case it is right.
Again, these are my views I am sharing with you rather than a rebuttal of your views.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 9:15 am
I want to thank those of you who have brought us back to ground (Kansas), i.e., our general subject: Wayne Dyer. Since we seem to have been getting somewhat personal here lately, let me share this with you. I have been a believer in the scientific method and its (verifiable) results since I was a child. I have also been a follower and student of Lao tzu for over forty years. I see no conflict between these approaches to understanding. For example, JohnQPublic mentioned how violent Nature is (and how Dyer glosses over this fact). In truth, though, Nature is decidedly brutal, perhaps, even, from a human perspective, downright cruel. Millions of creatures die or are eaten alive every day, babies and all. But this is confirmed not only by the Biological Sciences but by Lao tzu as well: “Nature is not kind. It treats all things indifferently.” – Tao Te Ching, Chapter 5.
I write and publish poetry, mostly about Nature (which to me includes Physics and Cosmology). I rely greatly on both the facts of science and the insights of the Taoists to guide me in this endeavor. They do not, in my mind, conflict at all. Neither do they conflict with my faith in God. If anything, as we see father and farther into the Universe and deeper and deeper into that of which it is constructed, Science has simply reconfirmed my belief that there is more than we, as humans, can perceive. How could an ant describe Mount Everest?
But faith is faith and fact is fact and Wayne Dyer has apparently gotten the two confused. The point is that Dyer has blasphemed both of these disciplines by misinterpreting and selectively misapplying them. He is either woefully unknowledgeable or an outright fraud. He can say anything he wants, but only a fool would try to use the Tao Te Ching to expound a different message than what is contained in it and if they understood what was in it, they would not endeavor to expound that message. As I said in my very first post here: If you ever actually saw a Taoist master, you would not even know it. If you could tell, of course, he wouldn’t be one. Dyer would probably say that he never claimed to be a Taoist. If so, then he should stop selectively interpreting Lao tzu (and Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Planck, for that matter).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 9:31 am
I thank you for the response, JoeG. I understand what you’re saying and you make a lot of sense. I agree with concepts like balance and I think your metaphor of the EGO as an immutable loud speaker is very good. Our personal views may not be as far apart as it appears.
But while I believe your sentiments are sincere, it would be another matter if you took them, packaged them on a DVD and then went on television to sell them to me. Expressing and sharing ideas is good and healthy, but there is a whole other level of responsibility when you sell them with big promises, even if only implied.
There is something insincere about someone who gets rich off telling others they can have all the abundance they want just by rearranging they’re thinking and builds a philosophy that downplays hard work and effort in favor of an extreme emphasis on if it feels good it is right, and thwarts any kind of argument against it. I would actually have more respect for Dyer if he knew he was scamming the public. The problem is he doesn’t realize it because he has convinced himself that if intentions are pure then so are actions. Nothing is further from the truth.
I believe in the Adam Smith maxim: “Social good comes from self-interest.” That is not an endorsement for the greedy by any means. It just means intentions are independent of actions. In the course of helping one’s self to survive, it is almost impossible to not help others along the way regardless of your intentions toward them. Conversely, good intentions can be the must hurtful to others. I believe actions are more important than intentions. And aligning the two does not improve it. Those who have helped the world the most have not had the best of intentions. The emphasis should be on what you do, not what you think or feel.
I am a strong believer that the culture of Western Civilization, meaning a continuum of military defense from the Greeks to the Romans to the European culture, has bestowed the greatest benefits on mankind despite its shortcomings and spikes of cruelty. It is the only civilization in history that is truly self-correcting and continually improves itself. It fixes its mistakes. And what makes it all possible is its capitalist engine. If it were not for the benefits of a free market economy, Dyer would still be struggling to survive and not have much time for his idle speculation. The fact that he can stand there devoid of the natural maladies that should afflict him–his teeth don’t ache, he’s older than he should be by natural standards, he doesn’t have lice, the plague, grille, diphtheria, or cholera, all because of civilized advancements driven by self-interest and not because of any positive thinking or warm intentions–that have been near eliminated by the civilization that he adamantly criticizes. He should be praising the virtues of western medicine , but he condemns it and makes physicians sound like idiots in some of his stories. The world is largely a better place (any student of history familiar with homicide and death statistics knows what an unbelievably safe and unprecedentedly secure time we live in) because of actions not intentions. Dyer is now telling us, “if we don’t get it, and I mean really don’t get it, civilization will end as we know it.” Western Civilization has survived all the holy roman emperors of Europe, the hundred years war, the quadruple alliance wars, two world wars, the great battle of Salamis, the attack from Carthage, the Punic wars, the Spanish Inquisition, the crusades, and he says that, by comparison, the little squabbles of today are going to do us all in! Nonsense. These are the most peaceful times in human history. Western medicine has done more good for the world than a million Dyers.
Bitting the hand that is economic prosperity which feeds you is not only foolish but self-defeating.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 9:46 am
By the way, Gary I completely agree with your last post. That’s is exactly right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 11:16 am
Just my 2 cents: the santa claus in a bottle comment made me think of something. Once there was a mail order product called genie in a bottle. What the buyer got in the mail was a little bottle with a message in it that said “the power is within you”. If Wayne Dyer advertised himself it would say “do you want a lifetime of abundance? Want to live a life of warmth and happiness? Then buy my product” And then what you get is a little message that says “the power is within you.” I think he’s a fraud too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
To JohnQPublic and Gary:
I agree with many of your views about the generalizations and selective misstatements that Dr. Dyer makes about the nature of life many of which have clear evidence in nature to make the opposite assertion. Many if not all of these assertions are not his invention per se but part of a larger thought movement many loosely refer to as new age thought. I would also say that I have had personal experiences that do not conform to a mechanical or scientifically valid framework for life and that some of the topics he discusses I actually agree with while disagreeing with his supporting statements and with some generalizations.
JohnQPublic, I do agree that you have plenty of reasons to disagree with some of the key statements Dr. Dyer makes on his program. Talking about proof and its importance when making statements, while I believe you have plenty of reason to question Dr. Dyer, I personally don’t believe that you have sufficient proof of your own to convict him of being a fraud (or a person who intends to defraud) either in a court of law or even in the court of public opinion.
When Dr. Dyer talks about Quantum Physics and its implications on life, he does not tell us that he obtained his knowledge of physics by pursuing his PHD degree in Physics at Cambridge University or that he studied under Steven Hawkins. What he clearly tells us is that his source for his understanding of Quantum Physics is Deepak Chopra (a non-physicist new age guru!!)
If you notice one of the central quotes he uses is Einstein’s view that the biggest question we face in life is whether this is a friendly or hostile universe we live in.
A case can easily be made that Dr. Dyer has chosen to answer this question posed by Einstein for himself, which is something he is entitled to do (as we all are, whether we are right or wrong) and then he found the evidence (I agree that mostly poorly researched and often selective) to validate his own beliefs. No different than the approach we all take in our lives so we are also guilty of poor judgment at times. In fact the scientific method starts out with a hypothesis (a belief) and then the search for evidence follows to validate the hypothesis. Many times the search for evidence proves incomplete or inconclusive so we go back and keep on looking for more evidence. The scientific community has agreed that this method is subject to cross examination and the repeated results from independent experimentation before the scientific community accepts it as a theory. This works for the scientific community but there are many areas of life that are beyond the reach of the scientific method at this time and require a decision NOW whether to believe in something or not (a trial and error or sink/swim if you will). For instance we don’t have time to wait around for science to prove God exists before we chose whether we believe or not. So we all make our decisions on what we want to believe in on major areas of life all the time for our own reasons whether the evidence we select is valid or not.
A case can also be made that he shares his views and opinions on public television and that you do not have to pay a cent to learn what his views are unless you want to purchase the very same video that you just watched for free on TV! A con typically hides the product, gets the money first then gives you fake goods. Dr. Dyer puts his program out on free public television for all to see freely and if you want to buy it after you watched for free then this is your choice!
Regarding the role of consumer protection laws taking care of this “problem” consider this, right now it is legal for the tobacco industry to sell a product that is both addictive and known to cause cancer and is responsible for over 490,000 deaths a year! Also, how many prescription medicines are OKd by the FDA only to be pulled off the market due to unacceptable research and side effects? Is this the group that is going to save us from misinformation?
If we require that the government enforce proof standards for any program that falls under the category of personal help, religious or spiritual beliefs then we would have to require that Christians produce proof that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and that he came to die for our sins, and that he resurrected on the third day. We would also need to provide proof that Jesus performed the miracles the Bible states he performed. Anything else could potentially “dup” people into believing false teachings!! Not only would we have to require this from Christianity as well but also from all other religions across the country and subject those statements to the same standards. Well we all know that this is not going to happen.
Personally, while I like proof/evidence and have a decent collection of physics books written by actual physicists, I do not need this level of evidence when it comes to my spiritual and emotional life and I certainly don’t need the government telling me what I should/can believe in and what I cant.
I agree that Dr. Dyer is not “the answer” and I don’t agree that all we need are his views to save us all from pain and disappointment in life but I don’t believe that government is equipped to save us from the misstatements of opinion of any public figure any more than government or any other institution\community itself can save us from the pain and disappointment of life themselves.
I also don’t see Dr. Dyer selling a program marketed as a Quantum Physics program and then delivering a program about “mumbo jumbo” and I don’t believe anyone has paid anything upfront to view the contents of these programs for either its content of physics, cosmology, geology, or any other science just to find themselves disappointed however I do understand how incomplete or unsubstantiated references to these sciences can be upsetting to some people even though as a computer professional I am not upset by inaccurate references made by non-computer people to back up their belief about anything in life!
To me his programs are about life, and yes science and Christianity, and Buddhism, Taoism, and all other religions are also part of life so it is hard to talk about life and how to live it without addressing what religions and science have to offer as guidance. What I learn from this is that if you are going to speak publicly about your understanding of any of the sciences or religion then you should do your research and make sure you know what you are talking about.
I am not defending his views, but I am willing to defend his right to express his views and if people want to give him money for his programs then I see no reason for him to refuse or for the opportunity to be denied.
I see Dr. Dyer as someone who is going through life TRYING to figure it out just as the rest of us and very successfully sharing his views on life with the rest of us whether we agree with him or not.
I have no interest in crucifying Dr. Dyer for stating his beliefs and for offering poor evidence to substantiate it, but that is my choice.
Good luck in your own pursuit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
caveat emptor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
To JohnQPublic:
I added my last comments before I had a chance to see your last comments. I really enjoyed reading your response and I just wanted to add that I understand what you are saying and I understand your genuine concerns and the potential for disappointment.
I just believe that in the end we are ALL endowed with the ability to make our own decisions and to learn from what works as well as from what doesnt work.
I dont believe we are talking about a country of intellectually inferior individuals devoid of the capacity to figure things on our own. We put things to the test, when they dont work then we try something else. Maybe this is the reason there isnt just one religion or one Self help book out there that meets the needs of all of humanity.
I agree that some of the points of view he expresses will not work as presented. When people try to see life through an “Erroneous Zone” to put his title into a different context then they will question the beliefs themselves and make the adjustments they need to make their lifes work again. I see this being similar to going to the doctor to get help with a medical problem and if you dont like the diagnosis or proposed treatment then you have the right to a second opinion and you will likely seek it if you have any questions.
What I am suggesting is that we are talking about adults who have the God given ability to discern what sounds like pie in the sky beliefs and what beliefs they want to try on for size.
I think you are doing a great service by sharing your beliefs and poking the holes into Dr. Dyer’s beliefs. In the end, people will read your comments then they will do and believe what they choose to and neither one of us can stop this.
Like Gary said: Caveat Emptor.
Good Luck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Fascinating comments from all, except of course the obvious Christian extremists. One question, why DOES Dr. Dyer constantly mention over and over that he lives on Maui? He’s obviously not stupid, yet when he says that over and over again, it makes him sound so immature, as if he has to constantly reassure himself that he has “made it,” despite all his other supposed messages. IT starts sounding like simple “lok at me I live in Maui and you don’t, ha ha) I like listening to him, and as some said, don’t try to scrutinize or worry about his personal motives or authenticity too much (though many of your criticisms ring true, he still seems to offer help to some who could benefit from it, for not THAT much money, so who cares), but every time (about every 5 minutes) he reminds us that he lives on Maui I feel the need to roll my eyes. I AM SINCERELY ASKING THIS QUESTION. Hasn’t anybody ever given him feedback on this? I will be listening, thinking, oh, that’s an interesting thought, and then WHAM – “Where I live, on Maui, with the whales, blah blah ….there he goes again. I have lived in the Caribbean, own a home there, and visit Maui frequently, yet I don’t find myself repeatedly announcing this to everyone, in fact I go out of my way NOT to mention this in conversation since it’s sounds so obviously pretentious! (Except of course that I mention it here!)I just don’t get it. I like him, but I wonder how peaceful he’d feel if he were living in a poor, inner city environment. Just why does he say this, over, and over, and over again?! And, like anyone touting his found utopia to others, would he love it so much if all of his followers suddenly crowded his beach? (Though his beach IS obviously crowded, and crowding up more all the time!)
WindiK
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
It seems to me that not too many of you ware able to tune in my wavelength. If you didn’t “FEEL” me then your mind wasn’t opened wide enough or I didn’t explain myself clearly (most likely the later).
About God and Universe: these are just concepts as well. What we call God or Universe is limited by our own limitations to understand or comprehend. It may be that these concepts don’t even scratch the surface of what’s OUT there or IN here. By our own definitions we create our own reality and Universe. The scientists will try to quantify and label everything they are able to detect with their Detectors (instruments and minds) and call that reality. The religious will try to explain things that they do not understand or comprehend with a Devine being that has all the answers and creates reality. Maybe not to all, but to me it is plain to see that neither of the two camps has a hold on REALITY (a concept as well that has it’s opposite). Both camps have been wrong in the past, are wrong now, and will be wrong in the future. Will either of them comprehend the Whole? I don’t know, no one does. But this is how I see each camp:
Religious – think that reality is explained in a Book, so they keep reading and studying the same book to find hidden meanings or the truth in it. For them The BOOK of reality has already been written at the beginning.
Scientists – probe their surroundings and write new books on what they find. They are trying to compile The BOOK of reality. For them The BOOK has not been written yet. It will be written at the end.
Both camps overestimate their capacities and their ways of pursuing what they seek.
One has more faith in what they don’t see than in what they do see, while the other has more faith in what they see than in what they don’t see. They each use different sensors for “seeing”.
Is there more (energy, information, etc…) in the particles that make up an apple than in the “empty” space between the particles? The closer and closer you look at the apple you find that there is more “empty” space than actual nuclear matter. It’s made up of 99.9% (I don’t know how many 9’s after the decimal place, but believe me there are a lot) “nothingness”. So the apple is the sum of a little “somethingness” and a lot of “nothingness”.
So what does all this mean? Unless we know everything about “nothing”, we don’t know much at all. We know and are aware of so little about God or Universe that we are not even qualified to have an opinion. There is infinitely more than meets the eye.
Well I have to get back to work. For those who question the creation of the opposite (the opposite is created simultaneously with any creation to maintain the balance in universe) in my earlier post can give an example and I will try to show how the opposite is created as well. One thing to keep in mind is time and space. The opposite may not be evident “here” and “now”. It may manifest in the future and somewhere else, but it is a “reaction” of the initial event.
Our minds may be our best friends and our worst enemies, they may help us see but also can make us blind. Sometimes you have to be “out of your mind” to see the Whole picture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 5:27 pm
To JoeG
I feel that you have good balance and an open mind. I value your opinions and philosophy on life. Your vector is in the right direction with proper magnitude. Keep flowing. If you have a chance check out the works of Tom Beardon. I’m sure what you find, can’t be found in your current library.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 21st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I did not realize Dave Bacon’s credentials. Very impressive. I would absolutely love to hear his explanation of ultraviolet catastrophe in the blackbody radiation problem. There is a subtle, and basic, point in it I never could fully grasp: why does Planck’s constant for the quantum allow the radiation to curve off and avoid the catastrophe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:32 am
To Zer0:
Thanks, I really appreciate your comments.
I took a quick look at Tom Beardon’s work and it appears that his free/zero energy machines are still a work in progress from the sites I saw on google. I have looked in to FREE/ZERO energy machines in the past and while I find the possibilities very interesting, I have yet to see one work. Have you seen demonstrations of his work elsewhere?
I first heard of these from the book:
The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe by Lynne Mctaggart.
I have seen claims that people have made a machine that produces energy machines based on these principles but I still dont understand why we have not seen a single demonstration on national TV yet. I mean this would be HUUUUUGE if anyone could actually make it work and whoever does it would be extremely wealthy.
On this one, I am willing to be open to the possibility of it being done one day but personally I wouldnt put any of my money in it until I personally saw it working first.
Thanks Zer0
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:17 am
To John Q.
You indicate that in order for Dyer to get on his soap box and preach he needs to have proof. I in no way believe him to be perfect; however he is someone who is putting a spiritual belief out there. NO ONE can PROVE what is spiritual, that’s why when someone believes its called faith. All I am saying is you take from what he says what you want to take, if you choose to believe that everything he says is hog wash, so be it. I do think that there are those who are extreme and follow like a lamb; however, there are basic concepts he puts out there that have helped people. If you and I had the same illness and we went to a medical doctor, what would work to cure you might not work to cure me. This is the same thing, a person in pain or turmoil may need a positive message and it’s possible his is the only one found. I will say it’s probably easy to have the amount of money he has to have the time to meditate, ponder, give, and feel secure that all will be provided. I myself have to spend a good 10 hours a day either working or traveling to work. But, if taking the idea of taking time every morning to be thankful for what I have makes my day more tolerable, than it’s not a bad idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 am
To JoeG: Regarding your response to my point about consumer laws etc. I believe you may have overlooked some of what I wrote. That’s understandable as we all seem to be prolific writers in this group.
Dyer and Chopra claim healing methods for cancer and other ailments. They’re slick in that they always represent these claims through first person experiences and never outright recommendations, but they are still telling us they have cures. Therefore, public safety is an issue. In fact, there are documented cases where a pregnant women with AIDS took up their recommendations and refused AZT treatment and later had t children die of AIDS related diseases. They were convinced that using their minds as alternative to drugs would be more effective.
I believe the government has a responsibility to prevent this kind of medical advice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 am
To clsr: thanks for the response. My comments about proof were not on the spiritual front, but the “I can do anything I believe” including moving clouds with my mind or other “conventionally impossible” things.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:33 am
John Q.
I am a cancer survivor, and I went through conventional medical treatment, however, even my doctor told me that he believed I would be ok where others wouldn’t because I went into my treatment with a positive mental attitude, he said that those who go in feeling like poor me, poor me, are the ones who work against the treatments. I’m sure if I hadn’t gotten convential treatment I would not be here now, but I do believe that part of my recovery was believing I could force my body to work with the medication. I’m 6 years out and I believe I will keep myself healthy (at least mentally) with the right frame of mind, and part of the right frame of mind is stress relief. Meditation can help with that. I do agree with you in finding it hard to believe that you can make anything happen with your mind (including the cloud thing) But I do believe that there are things in this world that are not explainable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
clsr: I can only say that I am glad to hear you are surviving and on the road to health. I cannot imagine what you went through.
There is plenty of research to support your experience. I have no argument with the idea that optimism and a positive outlook help the healing process. But this is not what Dyer and Chopra are saying when they discuss “quantum healing.” They use the term “quantum” because they believe it means “the physical is completely a manifestation of your mental image.” Therefore, they go on to say, “every molecule in your body is controlled by your mental image.” They claim that you if have a strong enough image in your mind, you can even “reverse”–not stop, but reverse!–the aging process. Dyer has said many times that he has ridden himself of all aliments once he corrected his self image. He has even claimed that autism can be cured through helping the afflicted individual to develop a positive self image. (He often cites the book “Son, Rise” to support this claim.)
Regarding your other point: the unexplainable. I agree. But religion and spirituality attempt to explain the unexplainable. And they attempt to explain it through speculative ideas and conjecture. Some things will most likely remain unexplained. Why is it not ok to just leave them that way? Why must certain individuals absolutely need an answer even if it is probably not correct? I see no reason why we need a purpose that transcends this life. What is wrong with making our purpose the here and now and building on the continuum of humanity? And that our purpose needs no other higher source than just ourselves? My purpose is what I make it, not what I convince myself a supernatural entity divined it to be.
Thank you for sharing your personal insight, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Gosh, I liked that one blissful moment over the rainbow. Sometimes, I think moments like that are worth so much more than all the WORD and THOUGHTS and ANALYSIS…
A wierd example of ‘manifestation’:
When I was 11, my older brother drove an on-off road bike. Mostly, he drove it all over our property for hours on end.
Essentially, the sound was annoying; to me, it looked boring. HOWEVER, my parents thought it was fantastic. Every wheelie he did, the 10,000 circle he road… u get the point…
So much positive attention. I convinced myself to like it. It HAD to be FUN. At least, getting some of that positive attention sounded like fun. And so, during Christmas, my brother up-graded, and I got his old on-off road bike.
Ok. I waited until Spring – all ready to impress my parents with my gusto. I was gonna get IN on some of the attention.
I had one driving lesson. Simple: pull the handle grips toward you – go faster. Release – slower. Brake.
EZ. ??? But deep down, I WAS SCARED OF IT. I DIDN’T LIKE IT. I KNEW I WAS GONNA CRASH. (But I pretended to be excited.)
(Imma girl btw)
About a week after learning to drive it – I was out on the front lawn, bored AND nervous – drivin around in little circles – when suddenly the self-conscious part of me kicked in. Where was everyone? Not only was nobody applauding… nobody was around…
Suddenly, the on-off road bike shot off like a rocket – and I tried to hold on for dear life. That faster I tried to hold on – the faster the motorcycle flew. My mind was numb – I was flooded with fear/shock – until A GREAT BIG TREE JUMPED IN FRONT OF ME and STOPPED THE HORRID ORDEAL.
(The Doctor neighbor came flying out of his house to see how I was. “Oh, I’m fine, really, honest, thank you so much…” I said. The motorcycle/bike frame was BROKEN. I ended up with the hugest bruise on my leg that I have ever seen on a human.)
Hmmm. I manifested my own fear, completely, 100% on my own. If the bike really had taken off on its own, I could have driven it forever – or until it ran out of gas – as I lived in a pretty quiet area at the time. I mean, I had to cross an acre of open land and aim for that one big tree – TO STOP ME.
I know I don’t have to explain all of that… but…
When I went into fear, I pulled the handle grips tighter and tighter making the motorcycle go faster and faster – and then focused on the one thing I was afraid of – that tree – and aimed perfectly for it.
Broken cycle only. Lucky me.
It happens ALL the time.
In my experience, I can observe how it operates in myself much more now (especially not being 11 ‘n all). I can often see often see how the opposite happens – when positive thoughts align with positive goals and positive efforts – and they’re all guided by – at the very least the golden rule (and for me, Christ’s teachings of peace, forgiveness, love…) – when it’s all combined with perseverence and holding things openly – WOW, can great progess in life be made.
Funny, I grew up in an affluent area not far from where Dyer grew up (I believe in a not very affluent area – more struggling – Detroit? Maybe?) Yet, at the time I became aware of him – he was most known for having written YOUR ERRONEOUS ZONES – which I felt was a nice self help book – but never got very far into/though it for whatever reason. He also occasionally spoke in later years at a church which I never felt compelled to visit.
STILL. WHEN I CAME ACROSS HIS PB Fundraising effort on INSPIRATION – it really did mesmerize me – not because of him, but because of the things he described – which I’ve said before SO paralleled experiences that I and fellow writers (one author in particular – a good friend who shares her experiences) have experienced. I remember thinking: Wow, maybe if you stay with a subject long enough (as Dyer has) – you evolve with it.
John Q. – I wish I hadn’t said the wounded thing. What I meant was more complicated – more like – you know so much about him – and have such great concerns. And I can see where you could be concerned. I think I said before the point about
not liking it when manifestation is made into a too simplistic term – or a selfish one. (I’m a consultant as well as a writer – and I would be so saddened if someone with a disability or illness believed they were at fault for manifesting it…for example.)
Yet, I hope people can take something constructive from the concept.
Direct TV has a lot of channels, right (conjecture – I don’t have it
). Anyway, I think we can make a creative comparison. Nobody can watch all the channels all the time. And who wants to spend a whole lot of time passively watching tv anyway??? When there’s REAL, not surreal, life to be living? However, when you do watch a show – you PICK one. That’s where you put your focus. That’s what you take in. That’s what influences your thoughts, emotions, and physical responses within your body during that time. ANALOGY? That’s sort of like LIFE. Nobody can do everything, live everywhere, etc.
So where will you put your attention? What will your life be? And how much will you let your fear, pain, previously dashed hopes etc. get in the way of whole-heartedly enjoying the life that you believe you most want?
Too many words – even for me!!!!!!!!! Blek.
As a friend of mine says “Over-analysis is paralysis.”
Just, if you’re in any sort of mud puddle, know that you can step out of it – RIGHT NOW.
If there is a dream inside of you – you can begin moving toward it – RIGHT NOW. Do accept this life as the gift that it is. That’s my personal xyz on the subject.
Lastly, I can always tell Joe G’s entries within the first couple of sentences.
How funny. Same with John Q. Nez, etc. There must be some sort of personality/energy? 
we give off – even in our writing. (I don’t even have to read the thoughts – it’s the politeness, or humor, or sensitivity, etc.)
Well, for me, I don’t think I have much more to say on the subject.
NO!!! One more thing. The Hawaii thing. I know several people who live in Hawaii – one on the big island, two on smaller islands. One is a realtor (who was trying to get me to by a beachfront condo for less than 150,000 seven years ago), another a web developer/maintainer/web coffee shop owner, and another a number cruncher who is helping his company establish a branch on the island.
It has never sounded to me like Dyer is bragging when he talks about Hawaii (but again, only heard the INSPIRATION talk). Still, if ya wanna live in Hawaii – live in Hawaii!!! Or come live near me – the Santa Monica mountains and the Pacific ocean are unbelievably uplifting every time I see them (everyday). And no, I’m NOT a millionaire.
Just – be happy.
Live happily.
And Joe G, – completely assuming you’re married. But if you’re not – you should ask Dr. Bacon if he has my email address – cuz I’d love to get to know you better – seems like you have a great heart.
PS Probably no more posts from me now – as I’d be repeatin’ myself. Plus, I already had my joy – that brief moment when all diverse opinions seemed to find a middle spot of accord.
Ahhh…….
LOVE TO ALL!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
PS let no stone go unturned
Zero – I did feel you – not just what you were writing. What I meant was – my brain grasped it – as a concept – but my heart and soul didn’t sense it as being a place to focus physical/emotional energy to get the most joy out of (and give the most joy to)……
But love to you to
. 
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I have to say I never heard him say he could reverse the aging process. If that’s the case why does he look his age? He looks healthy but not like he’s “reversed” aging.
You are absolutely right your purpose is what you make it.
Nice chatting with you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Dr. Bacon:
What about that blackbody radiation problem?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Clsr – nice chatting with you. (!)
And I love what you shared about health.
My Grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer that had matasticized to the bone – and was given several weeks (possibly months) to live. My mother made the decision not to tell her – but to go with essentially hormonal and pill/medication oriented treatment. Actually, what my Mom focused on the most was piling on the love, fun and joy – whenever my Grandmother was awake and up.
My Great Grandmother lived to be 107 – so my Grandmother had some good health genes rootin for her – still. I think a lot of what helped her was her body feeling loved, joyful, peaceful and relaxed. (Allowing the medication to work, facilitating her body to heal…)
Anyway, seven months later – they couldn’t find a trace of cancer in her body. NONE. (She died year’s later at 97, a tuckered out heart.)
I guess I’m saying – that I believe it is the frame of one’s mind that can help health tremendously. What you wrote about what you did made perfect, complete sense to me. Congratulations and bless you for sharing it with us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
havAgr8Day, I knew what you meant by “wounded.” No offense taken. I immerse myself in study. Dyer is not my obsession as I study as many topics as I can. But I do think he is a very irresponsible and a reckless individual who needs to be taken on. Some are doing so. For example, Michael Schemer. Also, look into a book called “Fool’s Paradise.”
Regarding reversing age, this link is from Chopra. but I happen to know it was originally written when he and Dyer collaborated. Also, Dyer has publicly endorsed it. (This is before the Chopra lawsuit incident.)
http://anti-aging-news.com/articles/spirituality.htm#aging
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Dyer’s endorsement of reverse aging:
“An ecstatic journey into the miracle of age reversal by two of the finest physicians and thinkers of our time. Grow Younger, Live Longer provides you with every tool to dramatically reverse your biological age. Willingly suspend your disbelief and observe yourself growing younger in every way. The best book on this subject since Dr. Chopra’s bestseller Ageless Body, Timeless Mind.” Wayne Dyer, Ph.D., author of Your Erroneous Zones and The Wisdom of the Ages
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Also, regarding the age reversal idea, did you know that Chopra uses a picture of himself taken almost 20 years ago for all his recent books?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
To JohnqPublic:
I wanted to respond to your comments on healing and the role of the mind vs. conventional medicine.
As you may know, there are many more cases like CLSRs and beyond than the medical community or the scientific mind can possibly explain. Many documented cases where doctors have actually written off the patients as “terminal” by all medical and scientific standards and yet these people have experienced healings that can only be attributed to either their mental resolve or to a positive attitude or to direct spiritual intervention. I have had the honor of meeting and chatting with several people with cases like this in my life.
At the same time, I agree that it is one thing to recommend that you enlist the power of your mind (or spiritual power or here’s an idea: GOD) to overcome disease and it is another to advice people not to seek medical attention at all.
My question is: Did the person you gave the example about incorrectly interpret Dr. Dyer’s advise to use the power of his/her mind to help heal themselves as “medical advise” to completely forego conventional medical treatment or did Dr. Dyer in fact clearly state that people should forego conventional medical treatments in his book?
If you could, please include a quote from his book where he makes this statement and I will gladly agree with you on this one since I too believe this would be irresponsible.
Here are some additional thoughts on this subject:
If there is in fact a mental or spiritual component to healing (even if only a selective or small measurable impact) do you believe the government should suppress this information or promote it or conceal it?
While we wait for the government to decide what to do, what do we tell the tens of thousands of people who as I write this right now are suffering at hospitals around our country being offered the standard medical treatment but who are truly beyond the help of our best trained medical doctors?
You provided a valid example of a lady who followed the “alternative” approach and avoided medical treatment and had her children die as a result, as a good reason why we shouldn’t allow anyone to suggest that the mind can be more effective than drugs. In a major study released in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine found that up to 98,000 people are killed each year by medical errors in hospitals. Now imagine what would happen if we used these failures as a reason to tell people: “If you are sick, forget about going to the hospital since 98,000 people die at hospitals needlessly each year due to medical negligence so you are safer/better off using ONLY alternative treatments”. If we did this, then what we would be doing is using only the failures as a reason to ignore the conventional medical treatment successes wouldnt we? If so, can the failures in mental\spiritual healings be taken at the exclusion of the successes to now tell people essentially not to waste their time with mental\spiritual approaches to healing when many such successful cases do exist as well?
If people have in fact been cured from cancer by nothing else than the power of their thoughts or from a higher power then should we withhold this information from the thousands of otherwise hopeless cases out there right now?
I strongly feel your concern for the weak minded who may be hurt by believing unsuccessfully in alternative treatments. What do you say to the many more who will believe in conventional medicine (and nothing else) and who will die as a result of only believeing in what is still an imperfect science/system that yet does not have all the answers?
Another way to ask this would be: whose death is sadder, the death of the one who skipped on conventional medical treatment seeking only alternative treatments, or the death of someone seeking only conventional treatments when they were beyond the help of conventional doctors at the exclusion of alternative approaches that have worked for others?
To me there is no difference. What I take from this is once again, be open to doing what works and if conventional medicine works for you then go for it and if alternative medicine works for you then do yourself a favor and give it a chance. In other words give yourself the best chances for healing by enlisting ALL possible healings avenues as needed!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
To JohnqPublic:
I understand and admire that you are seriously concerned about and want to protect the weak minded so please don’t take my questions the wrong way. I am just as concerned about the impact of depriving the smart ones of potentially useful ideas out of the concern that the weak minded may misunderstand the advice to the extent of ignoring their own common sense and life experience.
I also wanted to offer my comments/questions on the topic of Age Reversal which I only know little of what Dr. Dyers beliefs are on this topic based only on his quote that you provided.
I agree that the “Age reversal” idea sounds really hocus pocus, like a pie in the sky promise.
Not having read Dr. Dyer philosophy on this beyond the quote you offered, I still wonder whether you believe however that the opposite can be true.
Do you believe it is possible for a human being to accelerate or age their bodies beyond their biological years (to any extent) by eating poorly, smoking, drinking alcohol heavily and being always stressed, depressed, angry and miserable?
More specifically, do you believe there is a measurable and aging or damaging physical and biochemical effect on the body from consuming toxic substances, unhealthy foods and being under prolonged emotional distress?
I take it that like me you are not a medical doctor, so I am just asking for your general belief based on what you know about the body and the well published medical research, not your medical opinion of course.
Thanks
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
To havAgr8Day:
THANKS for your compliments (you made me blush) and yes you assumed correctly that I am married and yesterday we happily celebrated our 20th anniversary! Actually we have been celebrating all month and we still have a big party planned for this weekend!
You have a great heart yourself and a great spark and you seem full of life and I can tell that you are deeply loved by all who know you!
I wish you the best and please dont hestitate to address your comments or any questions you have for me in the future and provided I am still checking in, then I will be glad to respond.
Thanks,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Okay, I’m promised myself I wouldn’t look… and then I did
.
I write (as I’ve already repeated), and I consult – in a medical field in which I have a graduate degree.
It’s so interesting – because in medicine, it is called ‘the art of practicing medicine.’ Although western medicine relies as much as possible on scientific methods to establish a decision tree of healing methods – I’ve never met a physician, etc. who considered there to be only one right way. The concept is that human beings are all alive and different, and respond differently, etc.
Anyway, I believe when Chopra et al refer to biological age – that he/they are not referring to cosmetic looking age (how old we appear) but the age and health of our various organs, systems etc. In truth, the idea of turning back the clock biologically is pretty much an accepted concept in medicine these days. STOP SMOKING… and you will not only stop continuing to damage your lungs – but you will actually allow your lungs to repair themselves – thus if your lungs were very aged and diseased while you smoked, within about seven years – they would be almost pink again (as opposed to grey…) and their biological markers of effectiveness etc. would be hugely increased.
There’s actually a ton of medical stats now on the bio-chemistry of emotions – and on how the health of the body effects the emotions, and on how the health of the emotions effect the body.
Also, there is a large body of growing knowledge on what is called the chronically triggered fight or flight response (and it’s often unhealthy effects on the body) and on the relaxation response (and it’s generally health enhancing effects). Oddly enough, many of the things that alternative, or complementary medical practices have been advocating for years (such as meditation – a huge relaxation response inducer for the majority of the population) – has been found to have health inducing qualities. And when you consider that the body regenerates daily, weekly etc (depending upon what we’re referring to) – the choices you make everyday, and the thoughts (because thoughts can trigger the fight or flight/relaxation response as well) can have a huge effect on the biological markers of health (and I believe what Chopra is calling age).
About Chopra having the same picture for twenty years –
I know quite a few authors like that. I initially thought it was vanity – but later realized that for many – it’s sort of like ‘brand recognition.’ Like, Ronald McDonald never ages, right? And you always recognize THAT face 
.
Anyway, I picked up Dyers book on Inspiration over the week-end at a local Barnes and Noble.
– to a higher level of understanding.
Gotta tell ya – found the little blurbs I read/skimmed VERY INSPIRING. I will also say -
he does talk about his own path (in the book) of growth – talking about his desire to take a compassionate look at all of his mistakes etc. He also mentions that he almost always experiences a ‘fall from grace’ right before he synthesizes experiences/spiritual energy (my words – sorry Bacon
Maybe if his most recent PBS thing was horrible – he’s experiencing one of those falls from grace before he synthesizes it more.
Again, I only skimmed a few chapters – but I didn’t see him in the INSPIRATION book talking about himself or life like a magician holding a magic wand. He seemed to be fully aware of his history of flubs and foibles.
I guess in the end, checks and balances are always helpful. I know they are to me.
But I still wish that people could and would let go of the side of the pool more often (some anyway) – and experience the discomfort of floating out in the unknown – long enough to begin to see the outline of a brand new shore.
Is there something more? Of course.
And Bacon
will keep finding out about it in the direction he is looking, Joe G. in his own direction, and me (and all the rest of us-es 
in our’s. There’s lots and lots more.
I LOVED what the ministers daughter wrote eons up the posts “Practice saying ‘I DON’T KNOW…’”
What we know is infinitely less than what we don’t. I think anyone in any field would agree with that. And that’s okay. In fact, it’s down right exciting.
But LOVE – still, for me, that needs to be kept number one in terms of focus – because without it – well Bacon, the “spiritual energy” just really su*ks.
When you’re feeling down, look up – or OUT (as an astronomer might tell ya’).
Still loved Joe G’s initial post. Thought it was full of GRACE. Loaded with it.
Night night.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:57 pm
How funny Joe – just after I posted my lengthy note – saw your briefer one to me. HOW FUNNY. I too thought “Joe must be married because he seems quite well-loved.” CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU AND YOUR WIFE! And how nice that you are celebrating your 20th!! (I have a feeling I’d really like your wife too
) Have a great party this week-end!
And I do hope you keep posting your thoughts – on this board or elsewhere – because I think the depth, breadth, and sensitivity of them are awesome.
Now, night night again to everyone
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:58 am
Regarding the comment from JoeG “Do you believe it is possible for a human being to accelerate or age their bodies beyond their biological years (to any extent) by eating poorly, smoking, drinking alcohol heavily and being always stressed, depressed, angry and miserable?”
Age is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action. Entropy only goes one way: from orderly to disorderly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:18 am
havAgr8Day,
Wow the story of your grandmother is truly a testament to the power of love.
I too have read several of Dyers books, and have taken parts of them to help me see another way of looking at situations.
I know that some of his ideas are extreme; however, when my children were small I would exaggerate the importance of keeping their toys picked up in the hope they might pick things up once in a while. (Actually when they got older they asked if the “clean house police” were going to come over and if not what is the big deal. (This gives an indication of how influential I am.) I was raised knowing of the Bible and taken to church on Sunday, and yet I can say with confidence that I probably only know 10% of that book. (If that much) Maybe that’s why Dyer seems so over the top to some.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 am
Just in case anybody besides JohnQPublic is interested. This is from Wicked Pedia.
The ultraviolet catastrophe, also called the Rayleigh-Jeans catastrophe, was a prediction of early 20th century classical physics that an ideal black body at thermal equilibrium will emit radiation with infinite power. The term “ultraviolet catastrophe” was first used in 1911 by Paul Ehrenfest, although the concept goes back to 1905; the word “ultraviolet” refers to the fact that the problem appears in the short wavelength region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Since the first appearance of the term, it has also been used for other predictions of a similar nature, e.g. in quantum electrodynamics (also used in those cases: ultraviolet divergence).
The ultraviolet catastrophe results from the equipartition theorem of classical statistical mechanics which states that all modes (degrees of freedom) of a system at equilibrium have an average energy of kT / 2. According to classical electromagnetism, the number of electromagnetic modes in a 3-dimensional cavity, per unit frequency, is proportional to the square of the frequency. This therefore implies that the radiated power per unit frequency should follow the Rayleigh-Jeans law, and be proportional to frequency squared. Thus, both the power at a given frequency and the total radiated power approach infinity as higher and higher frequencies are considered: this is clearly an impossibility, a point that was made independently by Einstein and by Lord Rayleigh and Sir James Jeans in the year 1905.
Einstein pointed out that the difficulty could be avoided by making use of a hypothesis put forward five years earlier by Max Planck. Planck postulated that electromagnetic energy did not follow the classical description, but could only oscillate or be emitted in discrete packets of energy proportional to the frequency (as given by Planck’s law). This has the effect of reducing the number of possible modes with a given energy at high frequencies in the cavity described above, and thus the average energy at those frequencies by application of the equipartition theorem. The radiated power eventually goes to zero at infinite frequencies, and the total predicted power is finite. The formula for the radiated power for the idealized system (black body) was in line with known experiments, and came to be called Planck’s law of black body radiation. Based on past experiments, Planck was also able to determine the value of its parameter, now called Planck’s constant. The packets of energy later came to be called photons, and played a key role in the quantum description of electromagnetism.
Many popular histories of physics, as well as a number of physics textbooks, present an incorrect version of the history of the ultraviolet catastrophe. In this version, the “catastrophe” was first noticed by Planck, who developed his formula in response. In fact Planck never concerned himself with this aspect of the problem, because he did not believe that the equipartition theorem was fundamental—his motivation for introducing “quanta” was entirely different, and the ultraviolet catastrophe was not a motivation for the foundation of quantum mechanics at all. That Planck’s proposal happened to provide a solution for it was realized much later, as stated above. Though this has been known by historians for many decades, the historically incorrect version persists, in part because Planck’s actual motivations for the proposal of the quantum are complicated and less easy to summarize to a modern audience.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 am
PS – This also fits in with our Dyer debate somewhat. As you can see, Quantum electrodynamics is pretty complicated stuff. You can’t just ‘cherry-pick’ bits and pieces of and take them out of context…just like the Bible or the Tao Te Ching.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:52 am
Thank you, Gary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 am
JoeG, your last comments bring up 2 good points. But first, I am not out to change anyone’s thinking. While understanding and agreement are always nice, I do not expect it. This is a point where I both agree and disagree with Dyer: agree with what he says, but disagree with what he does. That is, he very often extols the virtues of acceptance and toleration of other views, but then he tries desperately to have the world adopt his view. He now goes as far to say “civilization will end as we know it” if we don’t get it—i.e., get his view. So, I’m not out to change your mind about how responsible he is. To me he clearly is reckless and there is a large body of knowledge to support it. Also, you said I’m attempting to protect the “weak.” I do not think the religious, the spiritual, or the followers of likes of Chopra and Dyer are weak. I believe they are in search of big answers, that the have a strong desire to have purpose that transcends life, and that it is not a function of IQ. But is a function of effort because challenge is effort and faith takes the easy way out. I maintain that spirituality is for the discontent.
The other point, JoeG, is your comment also demonstrates a central point I am making about faith: most of the faithful actually use what I’ll call “selective faith” or “selective proof.” That is, they’ll adopt a view without proof because it appeals to them—it’s warm and nice and tells they what they want to hear–, but any arguments that arise against their adopted faith then they want proof. Proof is really a defense mechanism against falsehoods—as it should be. The whole question is how motivated one is to uncover falsehoods. The fact that you are saying in so many words that you need more proof that he is irresponsible rather than just adopting my views outright illuminates that point. To generalize a bit if I may, even the faithful will demand analysis and proof when it is something they don’t want to believe. This is the problem with faith and the faithful: faith is only adopted when it is convenient. We all want the world to be the way we want it to be and not necessarily the way it is. Dyer preaches that very acceptance of taking the world as it is, and then describes the world in his own image—teddy bears and flowers (gag me!)–not the way it really is. What he suggests to you is that you not to accept reality but to put his positive mental spin on everything you see. He wants you to delude yourself into happiness. While I’m all for happiness, I would rather it be based on concrete thinking than ideals that are false. In fact, I will go a step further: I would rather fail with logic than even be right with faith because I would have at least expended the effort to be right. “Faith” is the lazy man’s language.
Now, you can take my word on faith, or you can demand I prove my claims, or simply ignore me. But any way you go I promise I will never tell you that civilization will end if you don’t “get” what I’m saying. The world will function fine without anyone agreeing with me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:55 am
JohnqPublic: ““Faith” is the lazy man’s language.”
Boy, that one is going to get you in trouble
BTW, it reminds of one of my favorite phrases: “What is proved by religion is a lack of imagination.” Of course that sounds really really arrogant, but you have to understand that I spend most of my day trying to dream up theories, so you might say that I spend considerable time imagining the myrad of ways that the world might have been.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 am
Thank you for the response, Dr. Bacon. I would add to your comment about how you spend your days, that you probably are not satisfied with just dreaming up theories. But that is a starting point for you and in the end if the model does not show predictability you probably put aside the theory. I bet you go through a self-correcting process. Imagination is the launching point, but it is critique and especially peer critique that determines the validity of that imagination. You don’t just take the imaginative idea on face value.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:27 am
Definitely. Experiment is the final arbitraror. Imagination in a straightjacket, is the expression, I think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 am
To JohnQPublic:
You didn’t really answer my questions and that is OK, I respect that you dont have to and at this time I feel it is best for me to stop addressing any more comments or questions to your attention.
I just want to wish you the very best in your own life journey!
Thanks for the exchange…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Wow, JoeG, you give up so easily. Here are my responses:
Question: “Did the person you gave the example about incorrectly interpret Dr. Dyer’s advise to use the power of his/her mind to help heal themselves as “medical advise” to completely forego conventional medical treatment or did Dr. Dyer in fact clearly state that people should forego conventional medical treatments in his book? “
Response: The degree to which they took is advice is unknown. But degree is not the issue. He is not careful about his advice (i.e., reckless). He puts little emphasis on proper medical treatment and mostly condemns it.
Question: “please include a quote from his book where he makes this statement and I will gladly agree with you on this one since I too believe this would be irresponsible.”
Response: I take it you mean on medical treatment. Some quick examples: his discussion on PBS about his daughter’s warts near her eyes and how “of course” (his words) the doctors could not do anything about it but once she starting “talking to the warts” they disappeared. Perhaps you have seen that. His talk on how serotonin levels are increased through witnessing nice acts and, therefore, are superior to taking anti-depressants. (Also on PBS.) Those are the light ones. Since I no longer have a copy of erroneous zones, I will have to paraphrase. In there he claims that no pill ever cured anything that it is your body’s reaction to the pill. True. But then he goes on to say that you can do the same as the pill mentally. False and irresponsible. There are more that I have come across, but digging them up will take some time. In general, he does not believe in western medicine that consistently points out that it is inferior to healing with the mind.
Question: “If there is in fact a mental or spiritual component to healing (even if only a selective or small measurable impact) do you believe the government should suppress this information or promote it or conceal it?”
Response: I don’t believe the government should suppress any scientific data unless it can hurt national security. So, no. It should not do anything with it. This is not a place for government. Protecting its citizens from fraudulent medicine or related advice is.
Question: “While we wait for the government to decide what to do, what do we tell the tens of thousands of people who as I write this right now are suffering at hospitals around our country being offered the standard medical treatment but who are truly beyond the help of our best trained medical doctors?”
Response: This is loaded with assumptions. Being beyond medical treatment does not give any validity to the views of shamans or any alternatives. Exposing these people for shamans and fraudulent claims only makes it worse.
Question: “You provided a valid example of a lady who followed the “alternative” approach and avoided medical treatment and had her children die as a result, as a good reason why we shouldn’t allow anyone to suggest that the mind can be more effective than drugs. In a major study released in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine found that up to 98,000 people are killed each year by medical errors in hospitals. Now imagine what would happen if we used these failures as a reason to tell people: “If you are sick, forget about going to the hospital since 98,000 people die at hospitals needlessly each year due to medical negligence so you are safer/better off using ONLY alternative treatments”. If we did this, then what we would be doing is using only the failures as a reason to ignore the conventional medical treatment successes wouldnt we? If so, can the failures in mental\spiritual healings be taken at the exclusion of the successes to now tell people essentially not to waste their time with mental\spiritual approaches to healing when many such successful cases do exist as well?”
Response: Wow. Again, the failures of medicine in no way validate anything spiritual. To show that anything spiritual works, you first need to prove there is a spirit. But the negation of one idea is not necessarily the validity of another. You’re building in a logical fallacy.
Question: “If people have in fact been cured from cancer by nothing else than the power of their thoughts or from a higher power then should we withhold this information from the thousands of otherwise hopeless cases out there right now? “
Response: Another built-in assumption. Who said anyone was been cured by cancer through just their thoughts? And how was it proven that it was thoughts that did the work and not the cancer just going into remission on its own?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
To JohnqPublic:
I read your last response after I already sent my previous one. I respect your point of views and you are entitled to your beliefs just as I am.
While you wont receive further comments from me I am sure that you will find that as long as you keep posting your opinions publicly then you will continue to receive more opinions in return.
Good Luck and again thanks for the exchange.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
JoeG, I think you just proved my point. The faithful loath challenges and become frustrated by them. Science, on the other hand, not only welcomes them but demands them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
To ALL:
I realized that this website has served its purpose for me and it is time for me to get back to work as I am falling behind and I have much to do.
I know that anyone who was actually going to benefit and get anything from what I had to say already got it and anyone else is entitled to their opinion as well and that is OK since I have other things I have to do at this time.
Thanks and good luck to all!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Well, then one parting remark. You waged a good debate and you gave me many things to consider. (I have a copy of your questions.) For that I thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
To JohnQPublic:
“Age is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action. Entropy only goes one way: from orderly to disorderly.”
True, that is the definition of Entropy. But there is also NegEntropy or Syntropy that goes the other way.
Is age or life governed only by Entropy? Don’t be too quick to form an opinion. Big changes are coming. Just wish you can live long enough (slow down your Entropy) to see what’s around the corner. Don’t let your today’s beliefs blind your tomorrow’s visions. There is so little that you know and so much that you don’t.
I’m not defending nor accusing anyone, just stating, and looking at the bigger picture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
OK, zer0. Point well taken. Are you making a case for the possibility of growing younger? If you are, how so?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I read the beginning and the end of this blog…same story different page; as is the middle, I’m certain. It’s just like men before us -men of a former era, men like you and me, discussing similar topics, arguing varying perspectives, getting nowhere…really, except intellectually closer to our own or another’s perceptions of reality, be that science based, religious, or otherwise. It’s interesting. I found the readings quite entertaining. I find people and humanity enigmatic. Our thoughts, our interactions, our misinterpretations, clarifications, emotional response, intellectual warfare, endless debates, cyclical nature, blah, blah, blah, yaddah, yaddah, ya.
“What does energy mean?” posts Dave. “I’ll tell you, it’s Christ,” replies someone else. “No! You’re both wrong. It’s neither, either, or; it’s what you want it to be, what feels right and moves the spirit and your life into positive action.” ….”Gee, Joe, that sounds good to me,” agrees the one who thinks it sounds good today. “NO. It’s not good, you fool. It’s about endotropy, built-in assumptions and cancer!”
Man before us is dead. We are alive. We too, soon, will be dead. That is a fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
“Endotropy?” “Man before us is dead?” Is there a meaning in there?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:47 pm
You hardly had time to read my response, let alone think of meaning.
But for me, yes, it does hold meaning: it means what do i really want to do in this lifetime. Do I want to pass on living as I am, or have lived, or do I want change in my life. The thought that men, like us, are now dead, as are their debates and conversations, is motivating. I guess we can learn from former conversation, but not all. Point: What do I want to leave behind. How do I want to live knowing that I get no other shots at this. It’s not a dress-rehearsal. The show must go on. But do tell…I’m enjoying this act of my life. I’m new to blogs, or whatever this is, and I like the perspectives I’m gaining. However, when I wake up in the a.m., my life must continue. I want to make the best of it, as I’m sure some of us also do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Well, I like to think I can absorb the meaning of a 188 words in a mere minute. The average reader, I believe, reads at a speed of 150 words per minute. So, 3 minutes on your post is probably adequate.
Now that I’ve had time to reflect on what you said…they still seem to be words in search of a meaning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
By the way…did it ever occur to any of you that Mr. Mystery-Man-Dave-Whatchamacallit, a.k.a. Ski-Master-Quantum-Physics-Guru/Dyer advocate-even-if-you-don’t-know-it is a fabricated being created by the advertisers that foot the bill for his blog?
Check out the “links” below (whom are they by?).
Life is short. Live it, without knowing where you’re going, and without going where you know. Ciao!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Dude, does the “J” stand for what you smoked this morning?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
To JohnQPublic
“Are you making a case for the possibility of growing younger?”
First you need to clarify for yourself and for me as to what is “younger” and “older” (as it’s opposite).
Your body regenerates and heals itself, otherwise you would already be dead. The exact nature of this process has been studied for some time and is being further developed by some very qualified people (at least in my opinion).
Rather then me speaking for them I will direct you to the source of this info. If you’re really interested in knowing and can keep an open mind please study the info at these links (I hope the links will be posted).
I think your concern for the possibility of growing younger will be dwarfed by so many other possibilities that are about to become real.
If you find nothing useful at least you’ll know what some people are pursuing.
http://www.cheniere.org/toc.html
http://www.ifisoft.ch/test/pdf/bearden/
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/index.html
Best regards
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Wow, that’s some pretty hard evidence. Son, this is how Jim Jones got his followers to drink the kool-aid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
What, exactly, was the subject of debate again?
HavAgr8Day…come back. We’ve run out of love.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Yes, many watch who do not speak.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
The debate is if Wayne Dyer speaks mumbo jumbo or not. The latest twist in the debate is Dyer’s endorsement of the “quantum healing” and “reverse aging” claims by Deepak Chopra. Specifically, do you believe that you can reverse–reverse, not stop–your aging through, mainly, positive self image? Zer0 has evidence that we are on the verge of a literal fountain of youth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
So did Ponce de Leon, eh?
Same fantasy, different century.
Hmmm…sort of like Heaven.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I did not ask you to take it as hard evidence. If you think I take it as hard evidence then you don’t know me well enough. But I see that for you if it’s not hard it’s not real. Your reply tells me more about you than it does about me.
Did you understand what you read? I only ask because the terminology and concepts may not be familiar. You will not find those in the textbooks . Please don’t take any offense, I’m not questioning your intelligence. I just think you didn’t even give it a chance. Probably your defense system reacted and closed your mind before you finished the first paragraph.
What is a “hard evidence” for you? Can you give some examples?
What are You pursuing? What have You to contribute to the knowledge base of mankind?
You think you are a very strong debater (my assumption). You are entitled to think that.
But to me you come across as a Resistor, resisting the flow of new information. As such you are not Conducting useful energy to yourself or to others through yourself. But I guess Resistors have a useful function in circuits as well. A circuit without resistance is impossible, not real (conventional thinking, “hard evidence” thinking). So I guess you serve your function of keeping everything real and conventional. Otherwise we would all follow Jim Jones.
And for that I thank you.
But I strive to be a Conductor, passing energy and information to the other components of the circuit and to other circuits. I may keep certain information in my Capacitors and later release if I no longer have need for it, so permanence is not in my nature. What I pass is not necessarily what I also keep. So what I believe at this point in time is not what I believed in the past or in the future. I try to expose myself to as much and as diverse information as possible. I keep or discard as I evolve.
I maybe as wrong about you or me as I think you are wrong about me or yourself. It shouldn’t be about wrong or right.
It’s all about change and exchange. Death (of body or mind or whatever else) is the lack of the above.
Looking forward to your exchange.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I just read “Ask and It Is Given” by Ester and Jerry Hicks…teachings of “spirit” called Abraham(introduction by Dr. Wayne Dyer). I found it an encouragingly relevant translation of, and in support of the Biblical teachings of Christ. I’m confused, though, when Jesus is itemized among a list of people in history also connected to “source energy” including Mohammed, Joan of Arc, etc. But the Biblical history of Jesus includes his death and resurrection so that we are reconciled to God through faith. Is this book submitting that the Biblical account of Jesus Christ is inaccurate? How are these two teachings reconciled?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
anyone?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Wu tzu,
HONEST – hadn’t checked in on purpose for a bit.
Felt that it was getting repetitious – and also, didn’t want to get… stuck
.
What’s funny and sweet and OF COURSE: I was thinking today as I was driving – ‘I need to pop up on that sight and just write “LOVE,”‘.
How cute that you got the point all along.
Love. Love. Love.
Big bushels of it.
Love Love and MORE LOVE!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
To m.e.:
You are not confused, you are simply correct.
Jesus is not connected to the source; He is The Source.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Does anyone have to show another that he or she has the one right way to learn or see something? Each of us has our eyes opened the way they are able to be opened. Each of us attracts the lessons and the teachers we need, and at some point, we are open to the learning and understanding and growth. Does it matter which author pens the words that shine the light so we may see how we may grow? Does it matter what inspires us if we are inspired? If good comes of it, is it bad? One does not have to choose Dyer’s way if it rings false, does one? Does one need to express one’s opinions with vituperative commentary? Or can one’s heartfelt views be put forth in a gentle manner that invites consideration and contemplation? I understand a lot of scientific things and that leaves plenty that I don’t understand at all. (For instance, quantum mechanics is way beyond me and I am just glad there are those who do get it and work with it and make the discoveries they do.)
If all the semantics are set aside, it seems the core of religion is finding some sort of peace and meaning and the guidance offered is usually (not always) that compassion and generosity of spirit is very helpful in that. Each of us finds our own way, hopefully, with the tools that move them to grow and learn.
Please be well and take good care.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
To m.e.:
Never read the book, but I believe that Jesus is God incarnate. While in human form, God taught us forgiveness and love. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I would listen to your heart and know that if this book is in any way at odds with the Bible, then you probably already know the answer you’re seeking.
The God of the New Testament realized that humans will always fall short, which is why He came to earth in the form of Jesus, preaching forgiveness. The whole point of the cross is basically Jesus paying for the sins of the believers so that we have a better chance at eternal life with God.
Jesus should not be included on a list of people searching for Jesus. That doesn’t make sense.
Now, I know there will be lots of people who may have a problem with this knowledge of mine, but I’m going with it, anyway. It’s ok that they don’t agree, as I don’t judge people. I just agree with the Biblical account of Jesus being the actual Son of God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
I also agree that God uses more than the Bible to send us signs of enlightenment. There are many ways to learn something, and one can not limit God as to the way He chooses to teach.
If God wants to use this thing or that thing to teach us something, wheather it be a book or a different form of communication, He will.
But I do see the Bible as true history and lessons in the form of parables.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
rather than chase our tails(so to speak) or settle for any sort of doctrine that feels good for the moment, isn’t it more important that we all strive for truth and life, as opposed to subtle and gradual deception, and kool-aid. The problem comes when truth is clouded by religious legalism, hypocrisy, manipulation, etc. God has been a faithful teacher and protector to me in the search for truth in my own life –His word promises He will answer if we just ask.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Zer0, why did you think I did not give it glance? In fact, I read it all and throughly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 24th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Zer0, a comment on my viewpoint in regards to your “you think you’re a good debater” but “are a resistor” remarks.
I believe that the greatest gift man has is doubt. Doubt keeps us from getting in trouble. Doubt would have saved the lives of followers of Heaven’s Gate and Jim Jones. So, yes I do resist ideas until they have proven they stand against challenge. Being open is exactly why people blindly follow others. I simply try to think for myself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 7:13 am
faschinating blog. For me, the bottom line is that W. Dyer seems and sounds sincere, and has helped me via tapes (especially the “AAAH”) and books to feel better and manage my life more effectively.
hana.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Nothing wrong with that, hana. I will say, and this is not a contradiction to my previous posts as I have just not touched on these specific topics, his message of personal responsibility, emotional management, deliberate action (i.e., recognizing you have a choice in each action), are all good. It is just a shame he dilutes them with the pseudo-science, new age spirituality, and, the most egregious I believe, dispensing ill-informed views on western medicine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Dear HaveaGr8Day. What is your genre of writing? I`ve been busy wanting to become a writer of fictional prose but dont know what to write about, nor how to (I do write little poems,though). happy end of summer.
hana
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 8:39 am
So, what does “Spiritual energy is the energy of abundance” mean exactly? And what then provides the energy of depletion and demise?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 8:43 am
–I too am inspired and encouraged by Dr. Dyer’s messages of personal responsibility and empowerment. I’ve chosen to accept his ‘teachings’ cautiously, however, as he delves into ‘new age spirituality’ and supports the idea that we each have our own spirit guide–why not choose ‘enlightenment’ through the one-true-most-powerful God; and why is that not obviously better?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 10:34 am
By the way, zer0, a response to your assumption that resistance is defending the status quo or “conventional” thinking. (Forgive me for addressing your points piecemeal, as there’s just too much in this discussion group for one fell swoop response.)
Religion and spirituality have been the status quo for centuries. That is the convention! The application of science is relatively new. Demonstration of proof has shown to progress humanity faster and better than religion ever did. (Although, I do not ignore historical theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and their contributions to the idea of analysis.) In fact, religion largely wants to turn the clock back in many cases (not always). Since the idea of analysis and proof, which hinges off the idea of doubt, took hold, progress accelerated in leaps and bounds.
So the resistance you mention does not have a track record of slowing things down. It sped things up! Speculation and superstition slows us down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 10:48 am
To complete that thought, zer0, it is precisely because challenge and resistance create a self-correcting process. Science is very quick to correct itself. Religion and spirituality want to proclaim truth rather than seek it. Religion goes to great lengths to not to change. If you sincerely want to be a conduit of progressive information for humanity (which is such a grandiose claim that I feel silly even typing it), then demanding proof of ideas is how you get there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
o.k., here’s another thought. Maybe new age spirituality isn’t a bad thing. I know that when I was a little girl, I saw an angel who tried to comfort me when I was scared. Maybe since Christ(or source energy in human form) walked on this earth, God has provided several others connected with ‘source’ who’ve been rejected as unconventional or nuts etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
If you saw an angel, m.e., then you confirmed that the Europeans were right and that the largest percent of humanity have been wrong. Since angels originate from European culture and are not described by myriad of other cultures around the world, then Christianity must be right in its conceptual image of beyond and the Goilala tribe of New Guinea has been completely wrong. Also, I wonder if angels come in other life forms: are there dust mite angels? Or bacterial angels? How about opossum angels? I’m sure there must be earwig angels because I see so many of them around my house. Do they not have immortal souls, too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
JQP, you seem to have a lot of knowledge on various subjects and I’m not sure I’ve been taken seriously. My search for truth and relevance is sincere and I welcome any contributing discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I’m sorry, m.e. It was also meant to provoke some thought as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
HAPPY END OF SUMMER HANA.
I write… anything that wants to come through me – really. And the more unconscious I allow the process to be – the better the writing almost always. Essentially – set the (OH NO!!!) intention to be open – and follow all your YESSES. (Does that meadow call you? Spend time there – and hopefully remember to bring a pen and paper. Craving the sound of waves – head toward the beach…) The biggest thing, more than anything in my life, that has helped me to move forward in creative areas, is honoring the personal fact that that is what I would want to be doing more than anything (‘cept lounging with the ones I love) if I only had a few more days on this planet. And since we all may only have a few more days on the planet – for me, I just decided to make some “sacrafices” (I don’t drive an expensive car – in fact, I sort of practice the concept of driving less car than I can afford – so that I can afford to spend more time sitting in the meadow waiting for the butterflies to land on me – the actual way I described the process of receiving creative inspiration – for years – which is why I almost zoomed through the roof when Dyer’s theme for his INSPIRATION fundraiser was so entwined with the monarch butterfly – and why his story of the butterfly landing on his finger – and his own personal WONDER and AWE {the way it came across to me anyway} just stopped me in my tracks. Truthfully, there were so many unbelievable synchronicities {close your eyes Bacon
it won’t feel so painful if you don’t read it. Just teasin’ you!!!} – that I felt as if – as if I was seeing a big sign post confirming everything I had been experiencing for several years…)
Anyway, the thing that seems to come through me most is writing that appeals to the child in all of us. I’m sorry I’m not more specific – but for me – it’s something I protect deeply as much as possible – and I don’t feel this forum would be that helpful for it.
But in terms of you – if you want to pursue your writing – then I would say absolutely whole-heartedly do it. For me, it generally equals pure joy. Truly – I once sat down to do some writing (around 7:30 pm) and after what I thought was probably close to two hours – I got up – and saw that it was almost 3:00 am. That has forever amazed me – because normally, you would have to have some very thick rope to tye me up with to keep me sitting in one place – not getting up to get a drink or use the ladies room
etc – for even a few hours. So, to do something for over seven hours – with no sense other than one of sort of fully being in a river of – creative pleasure – Anyway, BLAH BLAH BLAH. 
The truth though, for me.
Such happiness there.
The only other thing I would say if you want to really give yourself to your writing is: there are a lot of writing organizations out there – with a TON of resources. And while I like to feel like I’m a bit on a safari when I write (and not writing for a group-audience), I have met some of my closest friends and encouragers and fellow writers/authors that way.
And Hana? Never stay around nay-sayers if it takes away from your writing/creativity/joy.
That’s my whopping too many cents worth.
Oh wait, as always, a couple more: to Bacon:
I would guess that there is a real potential that science, and delving into the cosmos – brings you similar experiences? (Or not
) But to bring it all home – I still think: a person will lose out tremendously in this lifetime if they take only the path that their comfortable with (or joyous in) and use it to obliterate others. sort of like a person who can only see out of one window of their house.
Wow, nobody should make any more references to me now though. Because I really don’t feel I have anything more to add – I’ll just be sayin’ the same thing – and with so many words!!!!!!!!
(With manuscripts – I sometimes practice trying to cut the words in half… With this, I know if I even re-read what I’ve written, I might not have the time to send…)
Love to you Hana. And I hope your writing finds it way into my life someday
.
Pressing SEND
xox!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Just out of curiosity, havAgr8Day, who is your publisher?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
m.e. -
remember that angel, not JohnQ’s cynacism.
Love to JohnQ too.
(Sorry, after making my post, i spotted m.e.’s sharing about the angel. JohnQ, I really wish you could feel better. I get this sense that you feel you’ve lost something. I don’t think you’re going to find it doing what you’re doing here. It seems like you’re using logic to try to understand something much more – whole. Sort of like – you know, killing the frog and dissecting -
)
and missing the chance to know the frog. And look – right here on this board – FROG is so nice. Just a thought – could be ‘pletely wrong. And that’s okay with me.
Last but not least, for my own sake – I’ve got to get quite a few things into the mail – I will do my best NOT to read or post – for at least a couple of weeks.
Where your attention goes – grows
And there are some sprouts needing some big amounts of attention in other areas of my life right now.
Thanks so much to all of you for sharing your thoughts and hearts with me.
Until we post again
XOX!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
JohnQ: oh help, see, the quicksand?
Posted my post to Hana, and m.e. – and then saw your’s to me.
THANK YOU FOR MANIFESTING MY POINT FOR ME.
Still, love to you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Thanks for the thoughts, havAgr8Day. Normally I do not like to speak personally in discussion groups because it strays from the topic.
Your senses about me are not accurate in the least. This is the problem with people who trust intuition so much–it is almost always wrong. (Ask any scientist how many times their gut was wrong before it finally was right. It’s very lopsided.) I have had a tremendously successful life, married just once longer, probably, than most of you have lived (I absolutely adore my wife going on 30 years–how many can claim that?), and to be honest I’m an extremely happy person. I love science (it’s my passion) and I think cynicism is a wonderful thing. In fact, if you read about the Cynics of ancient Greece you’ll see that
much of your new age philosophy originates there. It’s just evolved from political activism to more a universal language adopting the “feel good” element along the way.
I’m a voracious reader (about 300+ books a year–I am semi-retired and so have a ton of time on my hands), I’m a writer by profession, I travel a lot (I logged over 280,000 air miles last year), my son is a successful rock musician, and I have nothing to complain about. In fact, knowing as I do some the details of Dyer’s life and his upbringing, he is typical of the type of person who was wounded at a young age and then spends his entire life telling everyone how happy he really is. I see no need inundate people with my feelings. But truth be told, I am internally a very optimistic person. I just do not believe that true happiness or true optimism is something you can detect or should be worn on one’s sleeve.
But I absolutely do not agree with the philosophy of the inner child. This is an idea that is an outgrowth of a prosperious economy as most similar ideas originated from middle class youth with a comfortable life and disposable income, not the poverty-stricken. (That was also true during the middle ages.)
Additionally, your comments about writing I have not found to be true, and I do not see it with other professional writers I work with either. To get published requires a ton of editing and rewriting. It is anything but a subconsciousness flow. Unless you write for Hay House, it is almost always an extreme left-minded activity. (Dyer was turned down by many publishers after Schuster and Simon dumped him, and then he found Hay House which will does little factual investigation and will take just about anyone who can fog a mirror.) My father was a writer, too.
But, again, this discussion group is not about me. It does have a topic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Did you all read today that Mother Theresa’s personal letters reveal she questioned her faith for almost 50 years? Who was it in the group that used her as an example of how an external “glowing” reflects internal happiness?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
I read about Mother Theresa. Shook me up.
What have you published, havAgr8Day?
Where did you go, Zer0? JohnQPublic took the last round.
JohnQPublic: What do YOU write?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Gary: what does a Taoist poet think about Dyers new book “Wisdom of the Tao”?
JoeG: have you abandoned us?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I write technical books and articles. Mostly on computer science. Actually, a lot of income that stems from writing is really through consulting and speaking engagements, not the books themselves. So, I’m not a fiction writer. My son is the creative one in the family. (Although, I do play jazz piano, so I’m not entirely without a right-side to my brain.)
I understand that my dry writing style and frequent use of active voice comes across as mean or frustrated to some. I suspect that is the case with havAgr8Day. But I can assure you I mean well and take no umbrage with anyone in this group. The image I usually form about others in debates like this is pretty positive. I believe people to be basically well-meaning even if I think their thoughts are incorrect.
It is not my intention to upset anyone or be condescending to anyone in anyway. Even those with whom I disagree (which for some odd reason turned out unexpectedly high here–usually I find friends in sciences forums) I believe make insightful points.
Everything I have posted here is an attack on ideas not people. (With the exception of Chopra and Dyer, who as public figures deserve it.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
You have many friends here, John. If we all agreed, what would we have to talk about? What is life without challenge, or, to paraphrase you, how can we learn without doubt? Even jday would agree with that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
JQP,thank you for your kind apology, although I don’t feel it was necessary. Your banter is refreshing to me, as both my father and husband are usually way too serious when I’m not. I’m a little too intense at times, and I’ve tried to balance that with my dry sense of humor.
I think I’ve pretty much come to terms with my confusion regarding new age spiritualism and Dr. Dyer. My mom is not a fan of my constant questioning of ‘established truth’ and at the age of 40 with my own little girl, her disapproval still knocks me off balance at times.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
that really sounds pathetic
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
That really sounds human. Welcome to the club.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
No, you don’t sound pathetic. In fact, that’s where we have common ground, m.e. I’m glad to hear you’re questioning established truth. That is how you will get answers. My advice is to not give up and always, always think for yourself and never blindly follow anyone. If the citizens of Germany had done the same in 1932, nazi (I refuse to capitalize that word!) Germany might not have emerged because what they were being told did not make any sense. So, keep at it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
my constant reference point exactly. I remember being in highschool and reading about Anne Frank and the holocaust, slavery, KKK etc. all in the present (20th) century. And I am still amazed today by most people’s complacency and lack of fury!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
excuse me, — kkk–
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
I have been to a Wayne Dyer lecture, and he gives 100% to his speaking and connecting to the audience.
He’s more than a hawker of books, and cds and dvds.
He has shared the whole journey of his life, from his difficult and troubled beginnings – to the moment in his 30′s when he had a mystical event take place regarding his Father.
He was able to quit drinking and focus on health by becoming a long distance runner, and over the years, he has shared his budding discoveries in the Positive Thought Movement – with a large audience eager to find meaning and contentment in their lives, and Dyer is the king of culling great works – and dispensing the core ideas in easy to read format.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
JohnQ’s comments to me copied and pasted here:
“But I absolutely do not agree with the philosophy of the inner child. This is an idea that is an outgrowth of a prosperious economy as most similar ideas originated from middle class youth with a comfortable life and disposable income, not the poverty-stricken. (That was also true during the middle ages.)”
JQ, I think your “intuition” was off the mark here. I wrote that much of what comes through me appeals to the child in all of us. Earlier, I wrote that I had a book in front of my desk, entitled IT’S NOT EASY BEING GREEN – with Kermit on the cover. That would be an example of a book that appeals to many adults (it’s not a picture book for children). But your hodge-podge analysis of your beliefs about one’s “inner child,” etc. – ????????????????????????????
More of you comments to me:
“Additionally, your comments about writing I have not found to be true, and I do not see it with other professional writers I work with either. To get published requires a ton of editing and rewriting. It is anything but a subconsciousness flow. Unless you write for Hay House, it is almost always an extreme left-minded activity. (Dyer was turned down by many publishers after Schuster and Simon dumped him, and then he found Hay House which will does little factual investigation and will take just about anyone who can fog a mirror.) My father was a writer, too.
But, again, this discussion group is not about me. It does have a topic.”
JQ, this is one of the most extraordinary comments I have ever heard. There is a book entitled THE ARTIST’S WAY – and before I discovered the book, I stumbled upon much of it’s suggestions – in my own creative process.
I understand that you write technical material. And I understand that you probably don’t have a lot of unconscious process involved in that.
Okey-dokey.
Writing to publish within a professional field (which I have done within the medical field) is not what Hana was asking about. She asked about creative/fiction writing. ART. There is a huge difference in the writing process of both.
And the truth is: I have actually dreamt manuscripts in my sleep. Creative/fiction/art DOES NOT EQUAL professional writing within the constructs of a given field in any way shape or form.
MY COMMENTS: I truly have said everything I want to say here. I don’t feel love toward you JohnQ at the moment – because despite how much you protest – you repeatedly come across to me like someone who is entrenched in a position (and who does have a lot of time on his hands) – and who also has an agenda.
I think humility, and encouraging others – is one of the highest things one can offer. And I’ve tried to offer it here (the encouraging). But the well is pretty dry at this moment in time.
Your question about who my publisher is? What????? The only person I am aware of in recent years with just one publisher is probably Dyer. And it is Hay House – and they all seem to be working very well together. I’ve never published with Hay House. But I’m certainly not going to shift over to now sharing with you my professional creative associations. Again, most CREATIVE writers that I know of – publish with multiple publishers – if they stay in the field very long. And not everything I write is geared for a book – again, I write what wants to be written through me.
I hope what I wrote was helpful to HANA.
But I won’t be checking back on this sight anymore. I like things that expand me.
And I feel like you are a dominant presence on this site, and that you constrict things. I’m glad you liked the term cynic – but do you know the current definition of the term? It is one who in general harbors a deep mistrust in the integrity and natural good-will of one’s fellow man. For me, cynic’s are exhausting.
I want to use the time in my life to move forward – not to parse sentences and words with someone who is cynical about – well, what are you not cynical about?
All I could think earlier today – after I sent my last posts – was: now I understand how people who can never be sure of love (what is love? does it really exist? I can’t prove it in a laboratory. will you love me forever? I’m cynical. Prove it….) can drive away the very people who could love them, be-friend them, grow with them, etc. It’s a loose, strange association – but it’s what randomly went through my head with you.
I’ve said what I’ve wanted to say about what was important and interesting for me.
No more now.
Do you know where I feel I failed? I failed with you JohnQ. I should have bowed out before I got to this point. There are just too many other important things to do.
(About Mother Teresa, I was the one who illuded to her inner glow. And the fact that she questioned her faith just as she lived it – doesn’t throw me. I’ve probably read 50 times more about her life, efforts, and the fruit of it – than about Dyer’s. If you are at all like me – reading her writings – won’t make you concerned that she questioned her faith. Again, checks and balances within any human being.)
And in terms of your life being a tremendous success – I hope very much that that is the case.
Someone wrote previously that they saw you as a resistor – for me it just seems like you have an agenda. And that you love to debate only for the purpose of advancing that agenda – or maybe – no, I don’t even need to write that.
But truthfully, your agenda is not attractive to me.
Bless you, good luck to you.
Take care of yourself.
I’m glad someone else on this site said you had many friends (maybe it was Dyer in disguise – because he could probably overcome your cynicism with love better than the average bear)
And if you say your life is wonderful; then I will wish it so – because that will give me a lot of peace.
Sorry folks – I failed in the end – because I do NOT feel love for johnq. at this moment.
But there is hope: I probably will tomorrow, when I’ve detached from this situation – and know that I’m not mis-using my energy – as I have been in these last few exchanges.
I’m feeling better already.
Love to all.
XOX – really.
But love also to myself by releasing this now.
The End.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Hi there havAgr8day,
I have been in the presence of Mother Theresa, and the energy, warmth, and care was so amazing, and I sensed she was deeply sincere in her love and service to the poor.
I will never forgot that feeling of love and grace – radiating from her. I have no doubt that her personal inner journey was a struggle at times. I have had many intense moments of questioning my beliefs, my intentions, and what I am here to do in service and how best to express my love for the Divine gift of Life itself.
Love to you,
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 9:38 am
I am curious, then Kate, and others, how do you feel about her personal letters to priests, just recently revealed in the last few days, where she says:
“I am told God loves me–and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.”
“Inside it is all dark and feeling that I am totalty cut off from God.”
She also wrote the prayers “did not work” that they were either “spurned” by God or “empty.”
And, she said she that she did not any longer see “Christ’s presence.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Hi JQP,
Do you feel Mother Theresa ‘failed’ in her spiritual practice? Because she had doubts? She seems to have had enough courage and – the honesty it takes – to expose her deepest fears, in letters she wrote to her confidantes.
She was and continues to be for many, and immense inspiration.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Thank you, Kate. No, I do not feel she failed at all. What I think this points out is that someone so close God (as we believe) says prayers don’t work, does not feel God’s presence and that God seems be inactive in her life and others’. Contrast that to Dyer who says he feels “the source’s” presence in everything he does and expounds endlessly that prayers in fact do work. (I guess God likes Dyer better than Mother Teresa.) On another point, it also shows that one really cannot necessarily determine one’s inner happiness by their external behavior (as havAgr8Day posted earlier; sorry to see her go.) Mother Teresa was actually in internal “agony” (her words).
So, do prayers work? Mother Teresa says no, Dyer says yes. Is God present in our daily lives? Mother Teresa says no, Dyer says yes. Was her outward “glow” reflective of her internal contentment? Turns out it was not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 10:50 am
what I think is that Mother Theresa, in the true spirit of Love and Compassion, chose to minister to poor souls in hell on earth and separated from God…that right there IS emptiness and darkness
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 11:06 am
You ask great questions John!
This one in particular intriques me,
‘do prayers work’?
My answer is Yes, and No.
the paradox
My life is the working ground of all paradox!
I believe as you – Mother Theresa did not fail in her service to the poor.
She did the very best she could – and really has made an impact.
Contrast this with the work of Wayne Dyer.
Is his work of less value?
Do you feel he is not being honest when he says – what in essence, is the direct opposite of what Mother Theresa reveals in her letters.
Has Wayne Dyer attained personal happiness within himself and his relationships to his family, his friends, and to his community, and to the larger community which he writes for?
He has been candid in past work in books and lectures, about his struggles with addiction, and his trouble with his daughter, and his failing in marriages.
He says he has made contact with ‘the Source’. What does this mean? how does it apply to his life?
Thanks for a great discussion!
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
A great response, Kate. In fact, an outstanding set of questions. (Where have you been hiding?) I completely agree with your comments on her service to the poor. I’ll attempt to address your questions one at a time.
Question: “Is his work of less value [than Mother Teresa's]?”
Response: I don’t really have enough information to answer that. For all my criticisms of Dyer, I do believe there is much value. The degree of value would need some kind of measurement and that is where I’m coming up short. What is the best yardstick for value of this kind? But since she did not go on PBS and sell DVD’s touting her charity and tell others “follow me, I’ve got the anwsers” I have to say she gave value in a more humble manner and more consistent with what I believe is true charity.
Question: “Do you feel he is not being honest when he says–what in essence, is the direct opposite of what Mother Theresa reveals in her letters?”
Response: I do think he is honest and lives in a manner consistent with his message. However, I do think he is unintentionally reckless in some ways, and I think the fact that he does not welcome open challenge diminishes his claims. But I do think he is sincere in his message. (On a slightly related strand in this discussion, I do not think Deepak Chopra is sincere. But that is outside this exchange.) Finally, I do not think he does his homework before treading into some deep topics and winds up offending Christians, scientists, Buddhists, etc. in one fell swoop.
Question: “Has Wayne Dyer attained personal happiness within himself and his relationships to his family, his friends, and to his community, and to the larger community which he writes for?”
Response: Probably so. Again, it’s a lack of a yardstick that makes the answer difficult. But I also believe that the truly happy do not necessarily devote much time to trumpeting their happiness to the world. I believe that perhaps the happiest of all will never be heard from and will offer little external evidence.
Question: “He says he has made contact with ‘the Source’. What does this mean? how does it apply to his life?”
Response: Good question. I do not know. His description of the source actually seems pantheistic and therefore is nothing more than another name for nature.
My take on the recent revelations from Mother Teresa’s letters and how they apply to Dyer’s claims is this: if her letters revealed that praying did in fact work for her, that she did sense Christ’s presence (I’m extending that to mean the same as God and “the source”) in her undertakings, that Dyers and others would be waving this on stage like a winning lottery ticket. His response is yet to come, but I believe it will be more of the what David Bacon described earlier as the “heads I win, tails you lose” logic. If his ideas are externally supported, we hear about it. If something occurs that contradicts his claims, then he presents that something as either flawed or irrelevant. What I would like to see is that he directly takes on the contradictory evidence. Either by openly questioning his own position in light of the new facts or developments, or strengthening his position by showing precisely the contridiction’s shortcomings. I would like to see a self-correcting course of thought.
Some questions back to you, if I may:
Do you think that his often stated criticism of western medicine and practices dangerous for some?
Why do you think he touts open questioning of authority but says to his followers that they need to banish their doubts when it comes to his claims? Should I then also banish my doubts and listen to the unsupported claims of racists?
If prayer paradoxically works (i.e., God assists those who ask) but does not (i.e., assistance is not given to those who do not “need” it), how can we say anything about the effectiveness of prayer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I have to also say that I expected one of the counter points to mine regarding Mother Teresa and the effectiveness of prayer might be she was the answer to others’ prayers. That she didn’t see it because she was it. (But I still maintain that prayer really does not create change, that we do through action.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Well, it’s a shame we lost havAgr8Day. But in my experience this is typical of those who claim the loudest about their inner peace and happiness. They actually tend to exhibit the most inner turmoil.
A few random questions:
- Do you notice a common pattern to those professing the most love in how they exit the discussion? One was “I’m leaving” then later “I’m really leaving!” then finally “I’m really leaving now!!” Why the need for such dramatic exits? If one doesn’t like it, just go quietly. It seems akin to, “I’m taking my marbles now and going home and you’re gonna really miss me when I’m gone!”
- About 10 years ago I saw Chopra on Bill Mahr’s show, “Politically Incorrect”. Actor Patrick Duffy was on, too. At one point Chopra blew up, Patrick Duffy patted him on the back and said, “you need to calm down, buddy.” Funny stuff.
- Why did havAgr8Day felt she needed to love someone who she only knew through writing? (She said she “failed to love” me. That’s ok with me, as I knew nothing about her and for all I know it could have be the love of a triple ax murderer.) It is natural for the strange to be greeted with distrust. (Just ask my dog.) Why isn’t distrust a good starting point? That is, shouldn’t trust be earned and not just given away freely to just anyone?
- One earlier comment of mine, posed in sarcastic way (for which I apologized), actually had a sincere basis. If all lifeforms possess an immortal soul, and souls from the afterlife occasionally drop by the form of angels (you can substitute “angels” with ghosts and other apparitions), why wouldn’t other creatures do the same? And I mean the really ugly ones like Jerusalem Crickets (potato bugs), tarantulas, and rattlesnakes? And why not single celled creatures like paramecium or amoebas?
If my questions infuriate others, I’m sorry in advance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Wow! I chanced upon Dr. Dyer on PBS. I will start by saying that i have not read everything all of what you have posted..it simply would take a ton of time! But as a mother who has lost her only child, I feel the need to make a comment. The ONLY way for me to survive life is to hold onto my faith in Jesus Christ. Just as my whole world has crumbled to the ground, my only way to survive is through my faith. Yes, there are many times when I feel that my prayers are unanswered…that my God does not hear me. But I know in my heart, that God IS with me…that He IS holding me up…and He IS helping me to survive a mother’s worst nightmare. Maybe I should say nothing as I know nothing…but through my own heartache, I have tried to help others through their heartache. Does positive thinking help us? Well, it certainly cannot hurt! When I go to my dark side, I pray to God to deliver me from my demons; the demons which tell me over and over again that it should have been me who died…not my beautiful child. Before I had my daughter, I had many surgeries to have children. God gave me ONE. He loaned me this special angel so that I might grow in faith and service. But not until I lost her have I really achieved that goal..and I continue to do so.
I am a scientist as well. And I truly do not find a conflict in my beliefs and in science. Science is a conjecture of what we believe to be true. Does it have to conflict with religion? Could there be different meanings for the same words? Science does its best to prove what it says…but we know that is not always the case. there are things we just have to believe to be true. But if those things are not true, our whole scientific system falls apart. Consider Euclid’s underlying belief that through a point there is EXACTLY one line parallel to any given line. Well, that is NOT true on the planet earth! By definition, parallel lines are lines that never meet. But consider a point on the sphere. There are an infinite number of lines (actually circles) that pass through a given point and never meet and are “paralle” to any given line. Our scientific method is only as good as the assumptions we make in our system.
So, what is the point here? We are given situations and we are given a choice as to how to react to those situations. We cannot change how we FEEL. I am perpetually sad about the loss of my only child. But how I react to that IS my choice. I can choose to follow those demons that haunt me…those demons that blame me…those demons that tell me all is lost. Or I can choose to look to the light and feel the love of God. Well, you don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure this one out! However, sometimes it is not so easy to make that choice. Sometimes those demons are so strong and so powerful that to fight them takes every ounce of energy that you have. Then you must give your life to God because it is the ONLY way you will survive. Faith is what might be when faced with things that cannot be. It is looking for things that can be, opening our minds to possibilities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Don’t you people have anything else to do?
Geez, get off your ass and go do something.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 8:49 am
The way to do is to be – Lao tzu.
The way to be is to do – Descartes
Do be do be do – Sinatra
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Be a good Do-Bee
– Ms Jean of Romper Room
Smoke a good doby
– Cheech and Chong
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Despite the time I do have on my hands, I have to agree with Trish. To go a step further, what the world really needs is serious people with serious solutions and fewer smiley faces and people roaming around claiming they “love everybody.” For the child-like, put the toys back in the toy box, turn off the cartoons, roll up your sleeves, dig in and truly help the world improve. You want to help the poor? Then go to South America and help build houses for those who can’t afford them. Go to New Orleans and help rebuild (which I have done). That’s how you help. Improvement takes hard work not hugs and kisses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 11:14 am
ToJohnQPublic:
Opinions are not something you should apologize for. Ever. Many of your comments made me think a little harder, even if I didn’t always agree.
In fact, there were some I did agree with.
Most people come to blogs like this looking for answers and looking to pose new questions.
This page was intended to be blogs about Dyer, and I think we share the same opinion.
There are many different styles of writers here. Some will argue, “What about the good?”, and some will say, “What about the bad?”
And I guess some will say,”Get off your ass and do something.”
That was both funny and insightful, by the way. Your response to that was good. There are serious solutions to serious problems. But I don’t think we need less love and smilies.
Wait a minute, I know what you mean now—we need less of the CLAIMING to love, etc. Gotcha. See once again, you made me think a little harder.
I agree. Patience is a hard attribute to master.
Debate is tricky sometimes in that some people will get very frustrated if they can’t “win” the debate. I look at it like boxing—Two people trying hard to get the knockout, but after the fight they(hopefully) will shake hands and say, “Thanks for the challenge.” Win or lose.
My opinoins about some things changed, but I never felt like I lost—I just changed. For the better. Thanks to people like you and Gary, Joe G, nez, and havAgr8Day, etc.
Anyway I have to get off my ass now(thanks Trish). Just wanted to say that as many different opinions we have, don’t be sorry for expressing yourself.
P.S.
Gary’s last comment was done well. I like Sinatra.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Reply to Wu tzu:
Why would I read somebody’s interpretation of the Tao Te Ching when I can read the many translations of the original? And…
if one needs interpretation it is quite easy to find dozens of books written by professional scholars of Chinese philosophy. Dyer appears to me to be a ‘johnny-come-lately’ amateur who is just taking advantage of these teachings for his own gain. If not, why wouldn’t he actually take Lao tzu’s advice and be quiet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Awesome! You’re a voice of reason, Gary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Zer0′s back.
Well said JQP (we need action , not words).
I don’t see how you guys can be on the blog during the weekend. I was building a patio/deck over the weekend under the hot S. Calif. sun from 9am to 9pm. Monday morning I couldn’t straighten out. By back and hands are killing me. Finally rolled off the bed and dragged myself to work.
Unfortunately I don’t have the luxury to read and write as much as I want to. JQP I envy you. Right now I’m writing from work during my lunch break. I have an 18 month old daughter that takes most of my time. But I give that time to her with love.
I’ll scroll back and see if I can reply to some of the comments. A great week to everyone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
No you don’t, Zer0. Trust me, life’s better on the upward side when you’re full of piss and vinegar and everything is coming at you. Enjoy that little girl like there’s no tomorrow. One day you’ll get up and that little girl is a thing of the past. It is unbelievably fast. The empty nest is deceitful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
JQP, in response to your 8/24/07 comments.
You probably do not see my doubtful side in my writings. But I may be more doubtful than even you, because I doubt today’s science camp also together with the religious. Let me continue and address your comments from 8/25/07 as well.
Today’s conventional science has become a sort of religion. The textbooks that the future “scientists” are learning with have old and erroneous information. The concepts that we have been taught and are still being fed have been shown to be in error. But the “Vatican” of science still “preaches” the conventional and the status quo. My point for the electrical circuit analogy in comparing you to a resistor was to show that, as the religious were doubtful about the scientific method centuries ago (and still are), todays conventional “scientists” are doubtful about the emerging new science and scientist, which emerges from the doubt about the validity of what we have been preached as scientifically proven truth.
I guess the difference between you and me is that you doubt religion and put your faith in todays science and it’s methods, while I doubt religion and todays conventional science and have more faith in tomorrow’s science which is born because there are those who continue questioning when others stop and accept the status quo.
And you are wrong about science being quick to correct itself. There are many concepts that people have gotten Nobel Prizes for and been experimentally proven, contradicting the conventional. These findings have not made it to the textbooks or have become conventional. The main body of science is 50 to 100 years behind in certain areas. It’s like in medicine, the latest research findings are at least five years ahead (more like 10) from getting to the doctor who is going to treat you. The patient needs that info today not 5 years from now. There is nothing fast in bureaucracy.
I’m not even going to reply to your “If you sincerely want to be a conduit of progressive information for humanity (which is such a grandiose claim that I feel silly even typing it), then demanding proof of ideas is how you get there.”.
You obviously missed the point. The book does not have to prove the validity of what’s written in it. It’s just a conductor of the information. The writer has the obligation to put on those pages correct information and the reader has the obligation to check the facts for himself. I guess I did reply to your statement.
Well I have to get back to work. My back still killing me.
WARNING:
All statements made by Zer0 are for information only. Zer0 does not claim to have “true” information. Zer0 only knows what information he has been exposed to and remembers only the information that was filtered by his mind and accepted as something useful to keep and pass along.
He who gets exposed to information from Zer0 must do their own research to determine if the information is beneficial and worth keeping.
A little serious humor
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Thanks for the wise advice JQP.
She Is my tomorrow. I want her to grow up and be smarter, wiser, stronger, faster, etc….. than me.
I want her to discover and see the things that I will not be able to. But most important I want her to be an independent and free thinker, having no fear to challenge the conventional and status quo if she finds a reason to doubt.
I love that little girl….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I recently read that the first person to live for 500 years (thanks to Science) is alive today.
I recently read that the first person who will step foot on Mars is alive today.
That could be your daughter, Zer0.
But also (just to keep our interchange controversial) I have to admit that, though I have great faith in Science, I will never give up on God. Too many miracles to account for with logic…or Science.
Don’t forget to mention that to your daughter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
“I recently read that the first person to live for 500 years (thanks to Science) is alive today.”
500 years you say, Huh… and I thought the “Weekly World News” had shut down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Correction (grammatical): who ‘would’ live for 500 years. (Re.: CNN).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Grammatical correction granted. But still, the amended claim that:
The first person *who would* live for 500 years (thanks to Science) is alive today.
Not bloody likely.
Quoting from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/07/19/aging/index.html?iref=newssearch
“There is a dramatic and intensive push so that people can live from 120 to 180 years,” he said. Some have suggested that there is no limit and that people could live to 200 or 300 or 500 years.”
“Outside the conference, many scientists who specialize in aging are skeptical of such claims and say the human body is just not designed to last past about 120 years. Even with healthier lifestyles and less disease, they say failure of the brain and other organs will eventually condemn all humans.”
“These people spout off as though a large part of the population is going to be able to do something like this. It’s just way beyond reality,” said Thomas Perls, who leads the New England Centenarian Study, the largest such analysis of the oldest of the old. “It’s just pure science fiction.”
“We are fast approaching what our bodies are capable of achieving,” he said in a telephone interview. “To get even the average person to be 100 or to get them to 180 is like trying to get a space shuttle to Pluto.”
“It’s certainly unlikely any time in the near future,” he said in an interview. “Sure there is a possibility but there is no data currently available to suggest ways that would happen.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 28th, 2007 at 11:41 am
HavAgr8Day, many thanks for the inspirational suggestions (esp. the one about not writing for an audiance). even more thanks for the warmth between the lines. Hope you`ll be back soon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 28th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Dear HavAgr8Day (2):
me and (the other) frog also loved the reference to missing knowing it in vivo. Quaaa . (or what is the English word for “Ciao ” frog-style).
hana
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 28th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Alas, seems this forum has been partially co-opted by what appears to be teenage girls wanting to console one another. The topic of this group was an out-and-out criticism of Wayne Dyer. It would be nice if it were an actual academic debate from serious minds. But I guess that is not the case. I do not believe what this has become is what David Bacon intended.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 28th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OruQy-X32O0
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 28th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Wu tzu, thanks. I don’t know in what she would be the first but more importantly I would want her to be healthy and happy no matter how long she lives. For me healthy body and healthy mind come first. Everything else is secondary.
Regarding God: Are you saying that that if the miracles could be repeated by men then you would lose faith in God? I hope this is not the case because the science that I am referring to and the technology based on that will perform even bigger “miracles” than what you are talking about. If the concept of God fills a need for you then it doesn’t matter if there were miracles performed or not. I think many people take the expression “Gods children” literally and think like children about God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 28th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I agree with JQP about the forum but admit that I have veered off the subject myself. My apologies. Tell you the truth I am not really interested in criticizing Dyer. There are bigger issues that I would prefer to spend my time on. If anyone knows of a blog or forum that fits better the subjects that I am discussing please point me in that direction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 28th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
ZerO: The Intent Blog (Deepak Chopra), but this one is more fun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 29th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Regarding, Zer0′s comment: according to George Lakeoff in “Moral Politics,” world views of government and even religion are extensions of views on parenting. While his book is mostly on government, he touches on religion, too, just a bit. For example, those who believe in a nurturing supportive parenting style (they don’t spank, they don’t use reward and punishment as a primary system of rearing, et cetera), tend to believe in a nurturing God and not the traditional Christian God. Conversely, those who believe in corporal punishment with their children, use reward and punishment style of rearing, then to believe in a God who issues reward and punishment: heaven and hell, for example. He says that our world views are very much shaped by our views on parenting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 29th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Does that make those without kids atheists?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 29th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Ha! LOL! Had not considered that. I should have qualified my post with a “those who believe in a god” clause. I doubt that a lack of belief has any relationship to parenting views because we don’t think of the universe as having a parent in the human sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 29th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Hello again John,
(from your comment dated 8/26)
I agree about your observation – it seems sometimes Wayne Dyer picks up on pseudo-science. I remember reading about Sanctuary, in Wayne’s book ‘There is a Spiritual Solution to Every Problem’ – which alleges healing by praying over pictures. WD himself suffered a heart attack as he was finishing writing the book.
There are elements in his life (imo) which contradict his teaching/preaching.
I find Mother Theresa so remarkable – in these newly discovered letters – to be able to write about her fears, doubts and not ‘make pretty’ the dark feelings, and her awareness that Life can be very difficult.
Thanks again for your great questions and this discussion.
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 29th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Thanks, Kate. Your mention of Dyer’s heart attack. That seems to only lend more support about how biology really dominates so much of us regardless of our thoughts. Here you have someone who has led a very, very positive life for a long time (he has written so for over thirty years), has longed practices mind over biology (going back to the eighties), told us you can get younger by thinking so (that claim precedes his “There’s a Spiritual Solution to Every Problem” book, so was practicing that before his heart attack), then suffers the attack. My father who never practiced anything Dyer preached, ate horribly his whole life (donuts, Dr. Pepper, ice cream everyday) , never exercised (he was a writer), smoked for many years, was not really a positive person, and basically never did a thing Dyer said. And yet my father never suffered a heart attack or any other serious ailments. (He certainly did not think “young.”) In fact, he lived will into his eighties and almost reached ninety. (I had a grandfather who lived well into his nineties, smoked his whole life, and claimed he lived so long because he had eggs every morning of his life. Understand that I don’t believe it was the eggs, as I think it was in the genes.) Yet, Dyer has told us many, many times how to avoid diseases through positive thinking, that ulcers (which we now know is caused by the H. pylori bacteria, not mental stress) are caused by thought, as well as heart attacks, et cetera, and yet there it is. He just cannot substantiate his claims and his own life even contradicts them. How one thinks I believe has some influence over one’s biology, but I think he overstates it dramatically. I think action far outweighs thought when it comes to improvement of any kind. Yes, thought precedes action, but it is the action that makes the real difference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 29th, 2007 at 11:02 am
By the way, WH, I thought that that video you posted by the girl was great. She’s one smart kid. There is hope.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 29th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Well said JQP (your comment to Kate).
The so called “healthy lifestyle” preached by the so called “medical community” has led to nutritional deficiency which is the main cause of the majority of ailments. Heart attack is not caused by cholesterol, it is a nutritional deficiency problem. In fact the older we get the more cholesterol we need to stay healthy. Of course the “medical community” will keep leading the public to believe that cholesterol is to blame so they can push their cholesterol drugs. Conventional medicine and doctors have become drug dealers, they have a prescription for any ailment. If one drug doesn’t work they have a dozen more that they can try on you. It’s OK that thousands of people die each year from the drugs prescribed by the well meaning doctor. Of course there are exceptions, but when it comes to medicine it’s “buyer beware”. Conventional medicine is great for patching injuries but when it comes to prevention and finding the underlying cause of the disease and treating it, they cause more harm than do good in the long run. No drug can do for you what good nutrition can. And I am not talking about the food pyramid that they have come up with to represent good nutrition. Only if you new who and how they came up with that pyramid.
John, those eggs that your grandfather ate every day were just as important as his genes. Eggs have a lot of nutrition and cholesterol. Only our body can heal itself. Nothing that any doctor can do or prescribe will heal our body. Positive thinking and attitude will help a little, but to help our body do what it is designed to do we need to provide it clean organic unprocessed nutrition. It will repair itself even if you smoke, have cancer, or any other ailment. Of course there will be exceptions. If the body’s self healing mechanism is genetically damaged or gets damaged later by an accident or by the “well meaning” medical system with it’s drugs, then no amount of positive thinking or good nutrition can overcome that. But I am sure that the new science that’s coming can repair the damage to the healing system of the body.
If you want to know how long you can live following your doctor’s advice on cholesterol and nutrition then find out how long doctors live. You will find that the “experts” on heart disease die from heart disease themselves, etc. etc.
Go ahead and trust the “experts” with your health, if something goes wrong see if they will take responsibility for it. Only you have the responsibility for your health. Your doctor will go on with his practice even after your death caused by his well meaning advice and drugs.
I am not advocating the vitamin pushers at all. That has become another drug dealing clan pushing another type of chemicals. Our body does not recognize these chemicals as nutrition. It does nothing at best and passes through or does damage at worst.
If you want the real “high” than you will find it only in natural clean unprocessed food.
Have you ate anything like that today?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 29th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Sorry, Zer0, can’t agree with that. There is a very clear correlation between high LDL levels and heart attacks. There’s really no disputing that as there’s a wealth of information to support it including those who lower LDL levels avoid heart attacks. I was not making a case that diet didn’t influence health that the “healing positive energy” business didn’t do him any good.
But I do agree that genetic composition plays a huge role in lifespan. But there’s no getting around the historical fact that as nutrition has improved, so has lifespan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
JQP, I’m really sorry about your confidence in the “wealth of information” that supports the link between LDL and heart attacks. Just like many well meaning doctors you too get your “truth” from the 10 o’clock news or the magazine article titles. I would have expected you to have at least some doubt. Have you yourself read a research study, or researched to see who did the research and who was it funded by?
I am a Senior Development Engineer at a Research and Development company and know first hand how things work. Any study can be run in any way to show any desirable outcome. Then those findings can be worded in a way to lead you to believe what they want you to believe. They can do “magic” with numbers and percentages. Then a reporter will get a hold of the research findings and without understanding what they are reading will publish a small fraction of the research or just a paragraph declaring that the research has validated something. And this is how the “wealth of information” is piled.
One of the most valuable classes I took in collage was Critical Thinking. What I got from that class was more important than all the formulas and theorems that I have long forgotten. If you can’t read in between the lines then you are doing a disservice to yourself and just feeding the propaganda machine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Dave,
You are driving yourself crazy by searching for answers in a boundless Universe you cannot study in its entirety in one lifetime. The progresses made by science are astounding, as are the progresses made by spiritual enlightenment. I cant say that Dyer has done any wrong, but merely tried to promote manifest destiny and self control. I too am against dogma, and believe it can only lead to, well, war. Quantum Physics is a detail oriented science but you must indulge in the fact that every theory in Quantum Physics is man made, therefore subject to a margin of error. We watch gravity act as a force but cannot see it, just as people believe in miracles they cannot see. You only see the result instead of the action. I think “energy” is used in a more verbal sense than scientific. But i applaud the civil debate on this board, and believe we can all learn from each other, and come to an understanding that we all share the same elements, energy, and breath needed to sustain life. peace.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 9:12 am
What progress has “spiritual enlightenment” made? Let’s look at 3 examples: it didn’t work for Dyer because he wound up with a heart attack right in the middle of the statistical age group–just like anyone else. And Chopra wound up suing an employee for $36 million dollars. (I’m sure it was a spiritual suit, and not about the money.) And Ram Dass, for all the years in the “healing positive energy,” is now in a wheelchair from a stroke at a way too young an age. Again, just like anyone else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 9:23 am
The “spiritually enlightened” tend to frequently suggest: “understand before you criticize.” Well, I suggest they do the same. Get a full education in quantum mechanics and physics before you criticize. Why is gravity a substantiation of the “miracles” people claim to see? One big difference is everyone experiences gravity whether they believe in it or not. (Completely suspend your belief in gravity and jump off a building and you’ll see what I mean.) But “miracles” seem to only emanate from a certain few individuals. Then the charge that others can’t see them because they do not “believe.” Nonsense. Because you can’t see gravity or wind or other features not visible to the eye, does not mean you cannot see its effects. And, moreover, it is not contingent on belief.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Our world will drastically improve once the remaining vestiges of religion and superstition are squashed. You want to end wars and fighting? Then quit pushing the idea that you understand the will of an invisible man and unsubstantiated unprovable ideas. As long as there are people believing in that throwing salt over your shoulder improves your circumstances, then we will get nowhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Before I get the argument back about Dyer’s non-violent ways, let me summarize precisely what I’m saying: Spirituality (all of it) is not the solution to our problems, it is the cause. Dyer is no better than any Christian missionary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 11:06 am
PASCHAL’S WAGER:
EITHER God exists or he doesn’t.
Which alternative will you wager on?
You can’t avoid choosing one or the other;
you have embarked on the wager already.
A refusal to choose carries the same result
as choosing that God does not exist.
What if you choose to bet that God exists?
If you win, you win everything;
if you lose, you lose nothing.
Make a bet that God exists.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Well, if I choose that God exists, then I have taken a position in the historically endless violent struggle of interpreting the will of that God. Now I have to have an interpretation of that God because it is not enough to simply say he exists. I will also have to have a significance to me and that God otherwise this is no point in conjuring him up in the first place. Not to mention wasting my life believing in miracles that never happen, or men with tricky magical ribs, or that I will be healing through the “power of positive thinking.”
So, with all due respect to Pascal, I do lose something: a place outside the great struggle and time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Dave Bacon’s Pascal Wager:
1. Either God exists or God does not exist.
2a. If you believe in God, then you go to hell.
2b. If you do not believe in God, you go to heaven.
So you should….?
For completeness…
Pascal’s triangle
1
11
121
1331
14641
15101051
A Pascal program
program HelloWorld(output);
begin
writeln(‘Hello, World!’)
end.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
We all have a view…I feel that if you look at all civilizations each of them had / have a set of “Golden rules”.. We can argue all our lives about which belief system is the right one…If they are based on love and not fear..They are true…
Can you ever be wrong if your actions are based in love…?
I wish all of us could stop looking for what is wrong with the other…
Robert Cohee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
OK I’ll get in on the wager too, although I think it is a childish wager. How old was this guy Paschal when he came up with this wager? It shows what a limited mind he had and how brain washed he was.
“If you win, you win everything”? What is he talking about? I don’t know of any God believing (more like fearing) person who has “won” or has anything more than a non believer has. Now if there is God then all of the believers who have wagered that God exists (otherwise they would not be believers) would have “everything” material and spiritual. The wager itself implies that the God who’s existence we have to wager on is a rewarding/punishing God. Since the believers have not been rewarded or the nonbelievers punished, then this God does not exist. If anyone thinks that this is not so they should show some examples of how a belier was better off than a nonbeliever ONLY because they believed in God’s existence and nothing else and vise versa.
Would anyone argue that all the other nonhuman inhabitants of this planet who don’t have a concept of God, or can’t choose on either side of this wager and therefore choose that God does not exist by default, have anything less than the so called “true believers”?
I think man came up with the concept of God because there was a need for it to deal with the unknown. It fills a different need for different people. It has become an instrument and an excuse for some, and a psychological crutch for others.
Unless mankind evolves to a point that the need for it disappears, there will always be the concept of God and the believers of the concept.
Personally I don’t have a problem with anyone believing in whatever they want to believe as long as they don’t try to make me a part of it.
If they try to force God on me I may turn into the Devil and take them to Hell with me
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Well, yes you can be wrong if your actions are based on love. That is my point about the independence of intention and action. If your intention is good but the resulting action is wrong, which trumps? You can believe you’re helping someone but that help could very well be unintentionally hurting. You have to objectively look at the action and divorce it from emotion. Make sure what you do really helps, not what you think helps. I rather give a poor person a house to live in and be completely indifferent to them emotionally than love them and give them nothing kind words. And, no, loving and giving shelter does not make the action any better or worse. It’s about the action, not the intention.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
By the way, Dr. House is my hero.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
My husband and his brother LOVE Wayne Dyer’s stuff, but as I had never heard of him before last year, I decided to read some of his stuff and look him up on the net to see what’s out there on him as a person and about his teachings. This is a pretty interesting site in that regard.
I used to be a Christian – for nearly 50 years. And not just your average name-only Christian. I walked the talk. I was the queen of involved in every church activity and study I could do. But more importantly, I was and still am a truth-seeker, and unlike most people I’ve known, and apparently many on this blog site, I am willing to pursue it regardless of the cost. Therefore, it has “cost” me my religion, a lot of “friends”, and some of my family, but gained me great freedom. Freedom from the slavery of dogma and the accompanying guilt. (Sorry, folks, that forgiveness thing doesn’t really cut it. There’s still guilt when you have to live with the consequences of your stupid actions and decisions.) And by the way, if Jesus died for ALL my sins, how come I still have to pay my traffic tickets. You know, the judge just didn’t buy the argument that I didn’t have to pay, since Jesus had died and paid the price for all my sins. Hmmm. Seems we’re still under a sacrificial system, eh?
To be fair to you all, I’m out here in the sticks and only have dial-up, so this sort of thing takes a lot of my precious time. (We farm – summer is really busy, but right now it’s too hot to work outside, so, here I am frittering away some of that time on this blog.) I say this only by way of explanation as to why I haven’t read every single entry on this site – only about the first 20, and then skimmed after that. I’m noticing, however, this great debate over various religious/philosophical views and I’m very amused, because almost all of you, regardless of whether you’re Christian or not, actually assume that Jesus really existed, despite the fact that no contemporary historian of his supposed time has recorded the existance of a miracle-working god/man. Sorry folks, you can’t claim the ones referring to “Christ” or “Chrestos”. Those are sungod dieties. And you can’t go to Josephus, either. Number one: he’s NOT a contemporary, so his accounts are hearsay evidence. Number two: the earliest documents of his work contain NO entries about Jesus by any name, making the later copies clearly a forgery. (Enter the Roman Catholic Church and/or it’s predecessors.) And, where did the name, Jesus, come from since the letter “j” didn’t even exist until the 15th century? Iesus, as in “Son of Zeus”?
If any of you Christians out there are wondering how I could abandon a previously very strong faith in all this, what I’ve just sited should give you a clue. I still love truth above all else. What I discovered when I started investigating church/Christian history was mostly lies. If I was to remain true to myself – who I am as a person – then I could camp there no longer. It’s really pretty simple.
Now, this latest bet about God has a couple of major flaws, (other than the name, “God” which has been used for nearly EVERY supreme sungod deity, in one linguistic form or another.) It assumes that there really is a heaven and a hell. Study your myths, people. Heaven and Hell, in the modern understandings, are inventions of the Roman Catholic Church. They existed in the minds of the ancients in slightly different forms, but were still part of their myths. Doesn’t it seem a little odd to you that the ancient Egyptians’ god, Horus, also called the “Son of God” “sun of Righteousness” “Lamb of God” “The Light”, etc. is exactly like Jesus? From the angelic announcement, impregnation by the “Holy Spirit”, virgin birth, adoration of magi, to the miracles, the mode of death, the 3-day burial time and resurrection – except for the time period, it’s identical. And that religion predates Christianity by 1,000′s of years. (BTW, most of you Christians out there have a serious math problem. Friday evening to Sunday Morning is NOT three days and three nights, not matter how you cut it. See: Jonah 1:17 and Matthew 12:39 & 40)
In fact, the entire New Testament is of questionable origin and authority, since the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John are clearly re-makes of Mark. And who the heck is Mark? That’s not even a Hebrew name. And the disciples? Who are James and John? (Remember, no “j’s” until the 15th century.) No one really knows who Mark actually is. And Paul was a Gnostic, so there goes the rest of the NT. All but one of the books of the NT clearly states that they are letters. Just letters, people. One guy writing to someone else. Additionally, the Old Testament authors are questionable. The story of Moses exists in time periods long before his supposed existance.
So, since I prefer NOT to believe in myths and esoteric stuff that can’t be proven or quantified, because it’s basically man’s vain imagination, all I’m left with is science. But now I have another problem, because too many scientists are religious, and I’m not talking about the creationists. You evolutionists out there are just as religious as the Christians you ridicule. You base your ridiculous theory (and it is still JUST A THEORY!) on flimsy evidence and the emotional need to deny a higher being. What’s more, you also state your dogma as though it were fact. Disproving one thing (eg. the Bible) doesn’t automatically prove your crap, either. So, I don’t see you guys as any better than the Pope and his minions. You haven’t proven a thing except that you’re just as enamored with religion and religious debates as those who engage you. I think you’re both wrong.
What I do see, scientifically, is that there is incredible order. The mathematical odds of that ocurring out of disorder are staggering. Also, from my limited understanding of physics, the evolutionary theory flies in the face of well established laws, ie., order does not evolve from chaos, but rather evolves TOWARD chaos. Yet, order seems to prevail, despite the chaotic actions of humans, so I can’t go with atheism. It looks to me like there is ample scientific evidence for intelligent design (just look at DNA, for Pete’s sake,) and evidence that that designer is a continuing stabilizing force.
There’s also science to back up many of what are referred to as the Mosaic laws (despite the fact that Hammurabi and Ur had them far earlier than “Moses”.) There are definite consequences for breaking some of them, that are natural and detrimental. ie. Sex with animals results in disease and death. And as nature seems to make every effort to continue life, it seems to me that death and disease are counter to our true nature, or at least that death BY disease is counter to our true nature. Otherwise, why do we have this compulsion to overcome it regardless of our religious or philosophical bent? These consequences are naturally avoidable by simply abstaining from the prohibited behavior. Animals don’t naturally cross breed, and mutations don’t reproduce. Cross bred animals, even close in species (ie, donkey with horse) are sterile and can’t reproduce. So, there seems to me a natural boundary there, that even animals understand. Also, if I step off a building, I will fall to my probable death. So I do see natural boundaries to our behaviors. Now, if one believes that death is the natural state rather than life, then, of course they would have no boudaries, but as humans, we can’t deny a certain level of conscience. We somehow intinctively know that some things are wrong and we instinctively are resistant to death. We need myths and philosophies to enable us to be comfortable with it. Of all the “aminals” on earth, humans are the only ones with these esoteric traits of abstract thought. I can’t see that as a product of evolution.
I can even see logic in some of the social (Levitical) laws. I have to ask myself, “Are we as a society, better off for tolerating adultery, murder, theft, etc.?” I don’t think so. Plus, generally speaking, our conscienses tell us these are wrong behaviors. We don’t need some church telling us that shooting up a hundred or so kids in a school is wrong. I also notice there is no prison system in the Levitical laws or even Hammurabi’s code. There is restitution for loss, fines as punishment, and death. The closest to prison are the cities of refuge for those who accidentally kill someone. So, it’s a form of house arrest if the offending party wants to remain alive, although that is still their choice. The one guilty of what we would call manslaughter, is not bond to go there. He/she could just as easily take their chances where they are, that the family of the one who they accidentallly killed won’t in turn kill them.
I have to agree with something I heard the other day: “I don’t know who God is, but I sure know who He isn’t.” So, I wouldn’t take any bet on God per se, although I am convinced of a higher intelligence of an electrical nature, because everything bears his/it’s thumbprint of electricity, so to speak.
You can’t go to any one source for truth, because everybody has some of it – some more than others. There can be no lie unless there is truth, because lies are perversions of truth. The problem is that both Eastern and Western thought is so saturated with mythology, it’s darn near impossible to sort out where the truth is.
So, back on topic. Does Dyer have some truth? Yes. But who the hell knows what part of what he’s teaching really is truth? If the energy he’s talking about is really electricity (because everything has an electrical quality/thumb print, both so-called matter and thought,) then there is some shread of truth to what he’s saying. On the other hand, electricity can be interferred with, as all of us have experienced. So, maybe you can only aim your “energy” in some direction, but that’s no guarantee that you’ll reach the destination or that you’ll get there without a “power outage” somewhere along the line. You might even end up somewhere you never dreamed of. The fact is, anyone with a strong desire for something will tend to seek out the things/people/avenues that will get them what they want. There’s no great mystery to that. And if that is what Dyer is really saying, then why are some of you people spending money on his books and speeches? GEEZ! Think for yourself for a change!
My husband and his brother swear by “The Power of Intention”, bless their silly little hearts, but there’s a lot in there that is conveniently unquantifiable. Also, you can’t underestimate the power of perception. If someone tells me that I will be happier and more content if I think a certain way, and if that is really my ultimate goal in life, then I will find a way to eventually perceive that I have indeed arrived at my happy and content place. And who can prove me wrong? I BELIEVE I am happy and content! See? Unquantifiable. The fact that many people have been “helped” by Dyer and by any number of religions around the world only means that they have found the perception (dillusion?) that they are comfortable with. It also means that there are an aweful lot of people out there who want someone else to tell them how to think. Not that there aren’t useful guides, but common, people, nobody has all the answers and few people even have most of them. You just have to figure it out on your own. Quit being so damn lazy! I can say this, because, as a former Christian, that’s where I was, too – happy and content, for the most part, living in my myth of choice, convinced I had at least most of the truth. Then my boat got rocked by irrefutable facts and the myth just wasn’t good enough anymore.
Dave, this has been a very long-winded way of saying that I think I probably agree with you more than I agree with your critics, but there’s still truth out there to be discovered. Maybe we’ll be fortunate enough to find it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Robert,
I think “right” and “wrong” are very subjective concepts.
What may be right for you may be wrong for me.
And, yes you can be wrong (have undesirable results) even if your actions are based in love.
I don’t feel that we are “looking for what is wrong with the other…”. At least I don’t approach this forum that way. Rather, we express our viewpoints and point each other in directions that we have not explored yet, so we can learn from each other and grow wiser together. Of course the quality of education that we get depends on us, the participants. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we welcome anyone who has something to say that can benefit anyone or everyone. The only prerequisite is that they put some thought behind their input and keep an open mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
JohnQ – Are you a truth-seeker at all? How can Dr. House be your hero? He’s the fictional propoganda machine for one of the biggest lies of all time, and all that in the name of science. It’s known as allopathic medicine – based on Voo Doo and the desire to profit from other people’s miseries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
ZeroO
So, if someone brutally kills your little daughter (if you have/had one,) but believes it’s the right thing to do, you’d be okay with that? Isn’t leaving all right and wrong concepts up the individual a formula for chaos and anarchy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Jodee,
WOW, where were you all this time?
You brought an electric storm with you. I was losing hope already. Happy to see that there are still free thinkers out there. I am especially impressed with your transformation from hard core religion to a free and independent thinker.
Completely agree with you on all your points. Thank you for your great input.
I would suggest that you research the info on this site with an open mind (which you already have):
http://www.cheniere.org/
It will tie some of the loose ends.
Don’t stop writing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Jodee,
I have a 18 month old daughter now. If someone hurt my daughter believing that it was the right thing to do, would live long enough to find out what Hell is like on earth. I’m not religious and I don’t believe in Heaven and Hell but I have a very powerful imagination. Even if he doesn’t believe in Hell I’ll make a believer out of him. When it comes to my loved ones, I am the judge, the jury, and the executioner.
But I don’t see the point of your argument (other than waking the beast within me).
For him it was the right thing to do, for me, it was the wrong thing that he did. It just proves my point that right and wrong are subjective.
What I do to him would be wrong from his perspective but right from mine.
Maybe it’s a formula for chaos and anarchy, but we are not discussing what we as a society agree as to what we want to consider right and wrong and putting it on paper as laws and abiding by them.
We are just talking about the concepts of right and wrong as they relate to us individually.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
ZeroO
You actually brought out more of the point I was making. There is no true individuality in the larger sense. What we do as individuals, what we believe, the decisions we make based on what we believe often become public and often a public problem very quickly. That is, they effect some other individual(s) and perhaps in ways that weren’t considered or intended.
My former husband felt it was right for him to sleep around. He brought home a nice little “present” for me which I was plagued with for nearly 10 years. Knowing the nature of this little “present”, I’m sure I’m not the only one who was adversely effected by his “private” acts.
I don’t think the lines of right and wrong are all that subjective or blurred when it comes to doing harm to someone else or to what is theirs. Outside of that scope, I would agree with you, that individual non-consequential (to others) choices of what’s right and wrong are subjective. Is it wrong for me to go to a movie? Of course not – unless that means I’m leaving my 6 mo. old infant (hypothetically speaking) at home alone or in the care of someone I know to be a child molester.
I see a huge difference between bountries and free choices. When natural boundaries are crossed, and I believe murder is one of those natural boudaries, for the reasons I sited in my original posting, there are unpleasent consequences. The very fact that this scenario awoke the “beast in you,” more or less proves my point. You instinctively are protective of your own offspring, as well you should be. The fact that some people aren’t doesn’t make them right. I’m sure that for the same reasons you got your hackles up over the prospect of your own daughter being victimized, you probably get equally disturbed when it actually happens to other children. I don’t get the impression you’d be sitting there listening to the news and thinking to yourself, “Well, that guy must have a good reason to do that to that little kid.” (Assuming a “good reason” would make it right for him.)
Frankly, your excercise of your own righteous anger (and I do believe it would be righteous) would be right for a whole lot more people than just you. It would be right for all the other little kids he didn’t get a chance to do the same thing to.
What I see is that we humans, by and large, inherently have a sense of good and evil and when push comes to shove, those lines aren’t all that fuzzy. At the same time, we also seem, overall, to have a sense that evil should be eliminated and good should prosper.
As far as the acts of love always or even often being the right thing, I have found that most of the time, people (not you,) who make that argument are really justifying selfishness or some self-serving attitude – the meddling mother-in-law. She meddles because she “cares”. (And I’m sure she thinks that the right thing to do, too.) No. She meddles because she’s a selfish control freak. I’m not talking suggestions or solicited advise, I’m talking real meddling manipulation. And in my book, stuff like that is not love. But, that’s just me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 30th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
A lot of good points here, Jodee. I’ll respond when I get a chance. Good input, I agree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 31st, 2007 at 8:44 am
Jodee, regarding your question about House, the character is simply an example of the separation of intention and action. That’s all. It demonstrates that social good can come from self-interest. It had nothing to with the practice of medicine. It was to punctuate the previous post.
We have some common ground, but we do diverge on allopathic medicine. Simply put, it’s got the best track record of any other “voo-doo” remedies you can present. What has proven more effective? Homeopathy? The medicine that has no medicine?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 31st, 2007 at 8:50 am
One other point, Jodee, where is evolution substantiated by the flaws in Christian theology? That is to say, I know of no one who claims evolution is true because Christianity is wrong. I have my own doubts about evolution–that in no way steers me towards the spiritual or supernatural–but it is, after all, based on discovery and evidence and not mythology. There are holes, to be sure, but it seems that Christian mostly takes the opportunity to proclaim their position in the face of the holes in evolutionary theory not the other way around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 31st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Also, you’ll have to explain “electricity thumb print” to me. I have no idea what you mean by that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 31st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
JQP,
I think Jodee means that electricity is at the root of all other fields and forces in nature, including matter, gravity, energy, life, and thought.
But let’s get her explanation, the above is just my interpretation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 31st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Electricity is the root of gravity? The electro-gravity thing, I suppose. Oh, man. Years ago there was an author claiming that gravity was the effect of continuously expanding matter. He claimed that the universe is growing (not to be confused with an expanding universe) and that it is not the ball falling downwards but the ground swelling upwards that causes it to meet the ground. (I believe this was pretty well discredited.)
You live long enough and you eventually hear everything. Thank God science eventually weeds out every crackpot theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 31st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Dr. Bacon, I’m glad to see your search for a stable qubit is also going to create world peace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsvEkPNitdQ&mode=related&search=
I guess the residual effects of the psychedelic sixties lives on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 31st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
John Q Public
Actually that is the perfect handle for you, because I fear that you represent the average unthinking close-minded American today. Sorry. I tried my best to be polite, but people like me suffer from the attitudes of people like you, because you seem to be the people who get autocrats and fascists elected to public office and then the rest of us suffer for it. (See, ZerO? No individuals. All parts of a whole and all the parts are connected.)
But for the sake of some of the others out there who might actually be buying what you’re saying, I’ll have a go at your comments.
First of all, lets take the one about Dr. House. There is literally NO truth in ANY of what you said. Heretofore, I thought it was impossible for someone to be totally wrong, but I guess I was mistaken. Of course, that’s just my opinion based on facts and here they are:
In 2000, if memory serves, Dr. Starfield did an extensive study on the leading causes of death in the US. Guess who came up #1 (or three, depending on who is spinning the results)? That would be the somewhat less than the illustrious altruistic institution known as allopathic medicine. 225,400 people, on the average, die every year as a result of doctor/medical error, unnecessary surgery, uninformed practices/procedures, iatrogenic infections (doctor and hospital caused), and drug interactions. That’s just over 75 occurrances the size of Twin Towers 911 in ’01. Want the whole story, look it up, people. It’s on the web.
JQP, your incredible ignorance is showing. When I said allopathic medicine is reworked VooDoo, I wasn’t just being euphamistic. It really is just reworked VooDoo. VooDoo is based on the notion that if one is sick, it is the result of an evil spirit. To rid oneself of the evil spirit, one must ingest or in some other way absorb poison in order to kill that evil spirit and regain health. I’d actually wager that Voo Doo has probably killed fewer people than the allopathy that is based on it. Don’t see the connection? Here goes: Allopathy assumes that if one is sick it is the result of a “germ” (evil spirit substitute). The germ theory is again, just that – an unproven THEORY!!! Never mind that the same supposed pathogens can be present in the same person at a different time and NOT make them sick, or that it can be present in another person who NEVER gets sick because of it. Nonetheless, the priests of allopathy (doctors) prescribe their poison (drugs) to kill the evil spirit (“germ”) or to mask it’s symptoms until your body, despite the fact that it has just been poisoned, manages to heal itself. Have you seen the size of the PDR? Get a clue! ALL DRUGS HAVE SIDE EFFECTS. Why? Because all drugs, whether over the counter, prescribed, or illegal, trap plasma proteins. Where ever those proteins become trapped, you have a side effect. That’s why there can be such a range of side effects. Now, connect the dots, here. Death, disease, and pain CANNOT be present, CANNOT HAPPEN UNLESS there are trapped plasma proteins. Of course, drugs are not the only substances that cause plasma proteins to become trapped, but ALL drugs do. And by the way, your body doesn’t know the difference between legal and illegal drugs. Ponder that the next time you see a drug ad apprearing in the same program hour with a public service ad telling you in some form, to “Say NO to drugs.”
Now comes the really interesting part – the part you, the average JQP does’t get. Everything has an electric property, signature, frequency. So, those drugs you take do, too. Unfortunately, their frequency disturbs the natural frequencies in your body which is what causes those proteins to become trapped and which in turn POISONS YOU!!!! Drug companies and doctors actually know this stuff, but they don’t tell you, because as long as they can only treat you and not actually restore your health to you, they can make a killing! How do you not see the problem here?
Homeopathy works (I know, because I’ve used it for over 20 years) precisely because it DOESN”T have any actual “medicine” in it. It only carries the electrical frequency of the herb from which it was originally taken. So, your body recognizes the frequency and responds accordingly, producing healing, because the immune system has been stimulated naturally and that has resulted in self-healing. If you’ve tried it, JQP, and it didn’t “work” for you, there are a number of explanations for that, none of which fit within your very limited perameters. #1 – since homeopathy works WITH your immune system (instead of against it!) if your immune system has already been shut down by toxins (eg. drugs), it will be unable to respond or at least respond in a way that you would recognize. #2 If you’re expecting an instantaneous resolution to your health challenge, you’re not going to get it either way. Drugs mask symptoms, so you’ve still got the problem. And it didn’t develop overnight, so it’s not going to go away overnight, either.
So, now what do we have with allopathy? Oh NO! Another RELIGION!!!!! not based on proven science, but on faith in a theory that says you’ve got a germ that has to be killed. HHmmmm. Sounds a lot like, “You’ve got some heretical ideas that need to be killed.” The doctor tries to kill the germ with toxins and if that doesn’t work, he cuts it out of you. If that still doesn’t work, he tries to burn it out of you. The priest tries to kill it with holy water, communion, “Bible Study”, and prayer, and if that doesn’t work, he cuts you out with excommunication. If that doesn’t work, he burns you at the stake. (Inquisition, anyone?) Oh, wait. They don’t do that anymore. They just send you to hell so you can burn there.
Doctors dress in white coats (denoting purity?) while they have you take off your clothes. That way you feel small and intimidated in their presence, as they surely have the authority of the AMA behind them. Priests dress in white robes and stand in high places while you sit below them in pews or chairs. That way you feel intimidated in their presence as they surely must have the authority of God behind them.
Do you really think you’re going to get the truth from either of them, when they can make so much money off of people like you with blind faith in them, their “magic potions”, and “spells”.
So, you see, selfish motivations, such as Dr. House’s, don’t really result in good for others. They result in profits for the medical establishments (churches/cathedrals), and sickness and death (slavery/guilt) for their victims (parishoners). All this while being protected by the Big Pharma Cartels. Oh, but wait. JQP is not the least bit interested in the truth. You’ve made that abunantly clear from your posted comments. I’ll bet, you’re probably on at least 4-6 meds yourself. And while I certainly wouldn’t deny you your views or the freedom to express them, I am dismayed that you do, in fact, probably represent a drug dependant public, who is so toxic they couldn’t think for themselves if they wanted to.
Enter, Dr. Dyer to save you from yourself. GEEZ!!!! ZerO, I think it’s just you and me….and I’m not sure about you… LOL Just kidding.
P.S. to JQP: go to rationalresponders.com and there you will find Bible naysayers (and they’re right about that) who then cling to evolution and atheism as fact; unwilling to examine it with the same critical eye with which they examine the Bible. The insinuation there is that if the Bible is fiction, then evolution is fact, as if there could only be two possibilities.
We could only hope that science would weed out all the crackpots, except that the scientific community has already been infiltrated by religious zealots, so, I don’t think we can count on that either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 31st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Jodee, I’m falling in love with you
You made my day today.
You speak my mind better than I do. I wish I could express myself the way you do, but I try as much as I can.
Looks like it’s just you and me that don’t have blinders on. But that is enough to start a revolution. We are a few but we have the universe on our side because we understand it better.
So you have used homeopathy. I have never tried it. I usually just eat raw good quality food and let my body heal itself. I haven’t used any “medicine” for many years (and I’m still alive JQP). But the next time I am under attack I will ask for your advice Jodee on what to do homeopathy wise.
Have a fantastic weekend.
We’ll continue next week.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 1st, 2007 at 5:25 am
Back to the whole Wayne Dyer thing …
Suppose we look forward ten thousand years – what will be true? What will be the condition of life as we know it?
The religious literalists might predict something completely supernatural will occur – something already written (predetermined?) in the Bible’s apocalypse for example?
The positive thinkers might assert that we influence it by our intents, and that good intentions are better than bad.
The scientists might predict that whatever happens, at least has to obey the laws of physics. The laws that are testable and repeatable regardless of the belief of the observer – not the quasi-spiritual energy quantum mumbo-jumbo.
What will *actually happen* as the universe marches merrily along without a whole lot of regard for what one tiny little population of sentient beings might believe?
1) Something that still obeys the laws of physics.
2) What humanity as a whole acts toward, with accountability. This includes:
*Direction or intent. This is what I like so much about Wayne Dyer – it’s up to us to imagine our direction, to focus on it, and to desire what is good (using religion or not). This is a mental and spiritual process.
*Action. Beyond intent, it is real physical WORK. This includes not just the push to move forward, but the accountability of feedback (or the feedback of accountability). Wayne Dyer’s philosophies, or anyone else’s MEAN NOTHING without the step of accountability. This is what bugs me about the spiritual non-physical bias not just of Wayne Dyer but that ilk generally. Seems like WD covers this base (barely) by saying things like “if you want it bad enough” meaning “you’re willing to work for it.”
Intent doesn’t yield outcomes – accountability does. A person’s values aren’t defined so much by their desires (is this opposing WD now?) as they are defined by what a person holds themselves accountable to. Mankind as a whole will achieve no better. Wayne Dyers of the world encourage us to extend our vision of what is achievable and to participate. I wish that they would add to their message a more realistic and factual method of realizing accountability.
Just trying to re-stir the pot :^)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Homeopathy has been debunked as a con job so many times it’s not really a debate anymore. There’s just no credible support in your corner on this one. (Personal experience is not credible peer critique.) To believe in it you have to believe water has memory because it is diluted to such a degree that the “curing” ingredient (which if you list what some are, including that which killed Socrates, your hair should stand on end) is gone. Homeopathists response? The water retains a “memory” of the ingredient.
For example,to make a 10X solution the dilution process is carried out ten times, each time taking one tenth of the mixture and diluting it. At each level, the mixture is “succussed,” which means hitting the container (seriously??) in a certain fashion. So, a 10X “succssion” means the active ingredient is reduced to a factor of one molecule in every 10X29 molecules. That means there is no more active ingredient! And, again, supporters say this is because the water “remembers” the molecular structure of the ingredient. That has no basis in physical law.
So, this is your position?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 1st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Actually, it is 10^29. Which roughly one molecule per all in the entire universe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 1st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
And, no, I’m not on any meds. I just don’t have anything wrong with my health at this time. Your corporate conspiracy theories are just silly and have nothing to do with provable truth. I’m sorry.
(Why do some simply have to go ad hominem in a debate? It would be a relief to keep it academic and not personal.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 1st, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Social good from self-interest. This is Adam Smith’s remark and point in The Wealth of Nations. You see it all around you every day: you probably didn’t build your house, but one was built out of self-interest (i.e., profit) and provided you a benefit (i.e., social good). You probably don’t make your own clothes, but that self-interest benefits you. You probably didn’t etch your PC board on your computer, but you benefit from someone else’s self-interest. And so on. There were several communes in the seventies that were built on intentional goodwill and not profit motive. They all failed. The profit motive has created more social good to man than any other. You see its rapid growth in China and India. Result? Poverty levels being slashed in large swaths. People don’t need kind thoughts, they need jobs. Nothing lifts poverty levels like a strong economy. Evidence is in such abundance I’m not sure how anyone can argue with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Zer0, you appear to be emotionally worked up. It’s just a volley of ideas, no emotion necessary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 1st, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Toddmeister, I’m mulling over your comments. Not sure what you’re driving at, yet. (It’s me not getting it, not you.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 1st, 2007 at 4:29 pm
JQP, your ignorance is still showing as you still don’t understand the electrical nature of everything around you. Do you believe the particle theory, too? Now there’s a snipe hunt if ever there was one!
And homeopathy has been debunked by whom exactly? The religious medical high priests? But, of course! For them, homeopathy is herecy. It heals, keeps healthy, and cuts into their profits. And the fact that homeopathy actually does work has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it worked not just for me, but for countless others. It’s science is well documented for those who wish to educate themselves rather than being spoonfed by people who claim to be authorities just because they have letters after their names. It’s all electrical, and I don’t know what your scholarship is, but it appears to be limited to your myth of choice. Homeopathy was not debunked, as you say, 100′s of years ago. What it was was overcome by the profitiering allopathic physicians who organized and formed the AMA – the collective god almighty. They did this because their popularity was waning. Why? because their track record, even back then was horendous. (There must have been a higher population of thinking individuals then, too; back when good sense was common.) Homeopaths, to their partial undoing, did not organize into a collective, as they were not motivated by greed and power, but only by the simple desire to heal. Most had other occupations by which they earned a living, and willingly educated those they “treated” to enable them to help themselves. Likewise with most herbalists. The AMA would like to debunk that, too, but there’s that pesky 3000 years of research, experimentation, and documentation in China during the Chen Dynasty.
Ironically, it’s the allopaths, who keep people sick and dying, that have kept herbalists and homeopaths in business. All you have to do is compare the track records. Hhmmm. People getting cured of “incurable” diseases vs. people dying from the treatments for those incurable diseases. The AMA’s definition of “incurable” is any disease for which they have not found a poison that will only mask symptoms until the body heals itself. (Explains why there are so many “incurable” diseases – allopathy runs contrary to the very nature and makeup of human physiology.) That 225,400 deaths at the hands of allopathic medicine doesn’t even count the 553,091 deaths from cancer and 710,760 deaths from heart disease, both of which they refuse to cure and opt instead to treat. (The Cure for All Diseases/The Cure for All Cancers/The Cure for ALL Advanced Cancers; Hulda Clark, PhD, ND. The China Study; Campbell and Campbell, PhD. – if you’re really interested in scientific documentation.) It’s just that 225,400 is all the AMA will admit to at this point. And by the way, these figures come from an allopath.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to follow the money. While capitolism has its definite upside, the downside is when it turns to avarice and an over-developed sense of greed in the few and the willingness by the rest to become slaves to them, so long as it doesn’t hit them in the wallet too badly.
You, like most statistitions, measure poverty in terms of monetary income. But that’s not an accurate measure. The value of any currency is only relative to what backs it up and how much FAITH the general public has in it. It is of no intrinsic value, therefore, at any given time, the world bankers, who control just about everyone’s currency, can manipulate economies worldwide. (Great Depression anyone?) The truly wealthy person is the one who can remain solvent and maintain a livelihood regardless of what the monetary markets do. And there are damn few people like that. That “poor” farmer with his fields and livestock who can feed himself and his family without depending on unstable currency is far more wealthy than the city-dwellers of China and India who have been convinced that earning a good living equates to lots of “money”. So, it would behove them to take some of that money, while it still has perceived value, and invest in real wealth – land and things they can use to sustain life. Oh, but wait. In China, they’re not allowed to do that. They have to get PERMITS to have a dwelling in any particular place and they don’t get to own REAL property. So, unfortunately, the people are being lulled into a false sense of prosperity because now they can afford “stuff” – gismos, gadgets – and they can afford to buy food from those that the Chinese government will allow to be farmers. Hmmm. Seems we’re not too far from that here in the good ol’ USA.
So, if your idea of a strong economy is monetarily-based, then I think you’ve bought into yet another religion, because you’re apparently not a student of history. True poverty is the result of ignorance, not the lack of self-serving capitolists.
Speaking of whom, (and lest we appear to be fetching too far afield,) enter, once again, Dr. Dyer. Hmmm. A “workshop” in Maui. That’s not going to be cheap!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 1st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Hey, Toddmeister! You almost sounded coherent there. You’ve impressed JQP, though. Do you think Star Wars is real?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 1st, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Wasn’t Jodee the name of the demon in Amityville?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 2nd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Michael’sword, thank you SOOOO much for elevating the intellegence level of this cyber conversation! Good luck to you and yours in the next fascist regime. Your wit will no doubt serve you well in the food lines.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Jodee:
Just an innocent observation on the sad descent of this exchange into personal insult and nastiness. I recommend you re-read the entire conversation and note that although the opinions have been diverse and frequently vigorous, even zealous, they were always, until recently, at least relatively civil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:32 pm
P.S. – It’s capitAlist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Thank you for calling me ignorant. I guess if someone doesn’t agree with you they are ignorant. (Note that I did not call you silly, but only the theory that you adopted.) I don’t understand the “electrical nature of everything around us?” Not sure what you’re basing that on. I’m a statistician from a simple extrapolation? Not sure why you decided to just lump me up with that group, but you entitled to your own conjecture. But you really are arguing that water has molecular memory and that is simply not supported in physics. I hope that came across.
I’m sorry, but you didn’t get the profit argument at all. It did not measure poverty alleviation in monetary terms. You jumped to that conclusion. I did not state specifically what the measurement was, I only stated what the basis of an improved quality of life was, not how it was measured.
We live longer and safer than anyone has in history. There are so many centurions alive today that science no longer studies them—they now study those over 110 years old because that is the new anomaly, 100 used to be that anomaly. So, the measurement is live span and living conditions free of disease. This just happens to go hand-in-hand with economic development. You cannot show a correlation between the sudden improvement in life span, reduced disease (malaria, typhus, yellow fervor, et cetera) and homeopathy, for instance. How do you explain that we now live so long, infant mortality rates are so low since the 20th century, and we live so disease free compared to our counterparts in , say, 500 A.D.? What caused this turn of events in your opinion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:45 pm
One other comment, Jodee, I did not express being “impressed” by toddmeister’s comment. I simply said I wasn’t sure what he was saying and the source of confusion was on my part at the moment. Nothing about that says I was “impressed.” Suggestion: please avoid the ad hominem statements. I don’t mind volleying ideas with you and I certainly don’t mind attacking ideas (in fact, I think that is a good thing), but attacking the person behind them isn’t helpful and detracts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/9594.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,847758,00.html
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:1SKFljGfV70J:www.physoc.org/publications/pn/issuepdf/65/3.pdf+homeopathy+debunking&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us
http://www.gordonresearch.com/answers/abc_news_20-20_debunks_homeopathy.html
“Is Homeopathy Quackery? by Mahlon W. Wagner, Ph.D.
In the United States, we have a motto: “If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” To what extent does homeopathy look like quackery and sound like quackery?
One clear link that homeopathy has to quackery is its supporters’ use of faulty logic. The first example is known as the “test of time” argument — the fact that homeopathy has existed for a long time shows that it is valid. But longevity does not guarantee validity. Astrology, numerology, and dowsing have been around for a long time, but they are clear examples of pseudoscience. Longevity of an idea is never a good substitute for rigorous science.
The second argument is that many people have tried homeopathic remedies and are all satisfied, so homeopathy must be legitimate. Along the same lines, we are told that the following famous and important people all supported homeopathy: The British royal family, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Mark Twain, O. J. Simpson, Yehudi Menuhin, Angela Lansbury, and Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science). The Chinese have a saying that if a thousand people say something foolish, it is still foolish. Also a majority vote is no substitute for good science. In addition, we usually hear only about the successes, but the failures are conveniently forgotten or ignored.
A third argument is the “non sequitur.” Typically, the crackpot says: “They laughed at Galileo, and he was right. Today they laugh at me; therefore I must be right.” (Actually Galileo was not laughed at. Rather he was persecuted because he was devoid of a proper Christian faith to accept the correct dogma.) Homeopaths say that throughout history many great geniuses have rebelled against the prevailing wisdom; many of these were ultimately recognized as correct. Paracelsus, William Harvey, Louis Pasteur, and Joseph Lister were vindicated by history. Therefore, it is argued, Samuel Hahnemann and homeopathy also will ultimately be recognized as correct. But this argument forgets that many more who claimed to be geniuses were correctly rejected.
In the spirit of fair-mindedness, one may be tempted to give homeopathy the benefit of the doubt and simply conclude “not yet proven.” However, what then are we to do when many lay practitioners report that merely writing the name of the remedy on a piece of paper, and putting this on the body of the patient results in a “cure.” Even two respected national spokesmen were unwilling to reject these reports, and one of them suggested that quantum physics may ultimately explain these healings as well as those reported by patients who are given the remedy over the phone.
We must conclude that homeopathy certainly sounds like quackery.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I have to agree with Michael’sword latest comment about the descent of the conversation. Let’s try to improve it. I’ll do my part.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 2nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
One more parting comment for the night (it’s very late where I am), let’s drop the homeopathy debate. I don’t believe I’ll convince you as you have your own experience to draw on, and I have already enough on it over the years to solidify my opinion, so personal experiences is not going to convince me. (That is in the general since, too.)
Can we turn back to the topic? I’m sure David Bacon is amused by a lot of this senseless banter (that is comment on me not others as I am a sucker for bad debates), but there is a topic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I agree with the calls for more civility, but I’m wondering, even with that, how much further this conversation can proceed.
It’s not just that those involved in the discussion hold different viewpoints on Dyers claims, but rather they approach his claims with such entirely different methods for discerning truth from falsity in general.
Temporarily set aside the discussion of critiqueing the merits/drawbacks of the different approaches to knowledge used by those in this debate.
If a common set of tools for assessing an empirical or philosopical claim can’t be agreed upon then things grind to a halt pretty quickly. A discussion between astrophysicists and astrologers on “The effects of the planet Saturn on the lives of humans on Earth” can be interesting for the first 10 or 15 minutes or so, after that, there’s nothing more useful to be said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:17 am
Perhaps. I think it’s amusing the way quantum mechanics is so widely used to link any subjective idea to science. When something is compared to quantum mechanics (the properties of healing, consciousness, etc.) suddenly everything about it operates on quantum properties and you can claim your idea is backed by science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 am
Dr. Bacon, one book I recommend to add to your library list (in the right hand column) is: “Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time” by Michael Shermer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Challenge to Jodee: show me an example where communicable diseases are largely eradicated, starvation is minimized (i.e., large local agricultural yield per acre is available), life spans increase, infant mortality rates decrease, and more discretionary time is spent on non-survival activities that does not also have a correlating economy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 3rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Interesting that after you’ve gotten YOUR personal attack in, NOW we should all be civil and shame on me? Come on, Michael’sword…the demon in Amityville? Just remember that when you point the finger at someone else, three are pointing back at you. Thankfully you can spell.
And JQP, you did appear to me to be somewhat impressed just by the notion that there might be something worth considering. It just looked like psycho-babble to me. I’ve never been terribly impressed with esoterics. It seems to be a popular technique for elevating oneself over others and creating an image of higher understanding and wisdom. I find it very self-serving, most of the time – and who can counter them as their claims are completely unquantifiable. (Gee, I think we’re back on topic, here.) I think we probably agree on this point, at least in regard to Dr. Dyer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 3rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
“Religion dressed up in authority soaked in pseudoscience. ” I think that applies to way more than Dr. Dyer. I find that scientifically speaking, that is the perfect description of allopathy. Re: “Confessions of a Medical Heretic” (Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, PhD) JQP, do you not see a pattern here? All the references I’ve sited for you are MEDICAL people and scientists. They are brave souls in their fields who aren’t afraid to say that the “Emporer has no clothes.” My attempts to explain the electric nature of the universe and everything in it (re: “Sub Atomic Physics” Frauenfelder & Henley; Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1991 & “The Structure and Properties of Water” D. Eisenberg; Oxford University Press, New York) and homeopathy have nothing to do with my opinion or even my personal experience. They are purely science. Misunderstanding of that science doesn’t equate to “debunking”. The fact that I have used that particular modality (as well as others,) only substantiates for me, the validity of that science, but the truth of the science is certainly not dependent on my opinion, as is the case with any science. It is true, or it isn’t. It is factual or it isn’t. It is proven or it’s theory.
I agree that you are unlikely to change your mind, especially if you are unwilling to do the research. I don’t know that you aren’t, but you seem pretty content to stay in the paradigm that you’re in, so at this point it seems pointless to continue that particular debate. People behave according to what they believe to be true, with or without the benefit of facts. I’m certainly unwilling to change my view of allopathy, and that’s based both on personal research AND personal experience. I’ve learned what the science is and I know how it damaged me. Conversely, I also know how avoiding it in favor of more physiologically compatible modalities has benefited me.
As far as your challenge is concerned, it is nearly impossible for me to meet as there are a couple of premises that are either incorrect or too vague to adress. You’re talking infectous diseases, when we’re in the age of degenerative diseases. (USA) While antibiotics may have had a band-aid effect in underdeveloped countries at some point in time (including this one), we are now suffering the consequences of that short-sighted band-aid solution – “super-bugs”. And viral organisms go through evolutionary cycles (evolution in the true sense, not the metemorphic sense) whose declines can be historically charted in both countries that vaccinated and ones that didn’t. The decline rates are nearly indistinguishable between the two. Degenerative diseases are the result of nutrient deficiencies, not drug deficiencies. Out of 12 developed countries including Canada, France, Germany, & Japan, the US consistantly ranks LAST on the basis of sixteen different indicators of health care efficacy. The WHO ranked the US 37th in the world overall. Yet, the US out-ranks EVERY other country in allopathic spending. As a statistition, I should think that would interest you somewhat. The info is out there for anyone who is truly interested in knowing.
It’s been a stimulating discussion, JQP, but I think we’re done. Thanks. It was fun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 3rd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
To JQP:
You’re going to engage in an extended conversation about Wayne Dyer’s statements on “Intentionality” and quantum physics with those who believe, among other things, that gravity is electrically based, and that our bodies can be healed by the frequencies in herbs, and you’re expecting a meaningful discussion on the topic?
“Hope Springs Eternal” begins the final paragraph of Shermer’s book
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Månesteiner: Well, I am perpetually curious why people buy into some very fringe ideas. Specifically, if they are just contrarians (which, ironically, means their views are still defined by mainstream thought) or if there is any real logic there–and I don’t mean a tie to science kind of logic, which is almost always the case, such as borrowing from quantum theory terminology, but an actual procession of rational thought. Like Shermer’s example on the Holocaust deniers.
But my challenge was legitimate. I really am curious if there is a case either in history or just naming some sovereign state where there is sustained improvement in conditions with no ties to a strong local economy.
But a lot of my points are of the “how high will this ball bounce if I throw it this way” vein.
I also find it interesting how deeply emotional and personal worldviews are. They become fortresses that must be defended at all costs sometimes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Have you read any of Bacon’s research papers on this site? They’re pretty interesting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
“Månesteiner: Well, I am perpetually curious why people buy into some very fringe ideas.”
I’d agree with Shermer in that “… the reason people believe weird things is because they want to. It feels good.” p.275
As you know, in his book Shermer argues that the human brain is hardwired for pattern seeking, we
search for causality. Those are basic survival skills. Not exactly a new idea, but still the Psych research does support that. So, confronted with raw data, we’re always wanting an explanation, a context.
He also notes that rational thinking, skepticism, takes effort and work. It’s not the brains default approach to incoming data. So, less disciplined minds (hardwired for pattern seeking) will connect the dots in lazier ways, resulting in magical thinking, astrology, fringe ideas, etc.
Anyways, that’s my take on why people believe crazy stuff!
“I really am curious if there is a case either in history or just naming some sovereign state where there is sustained improvement in conditions with no ties to a strong local economy.”
Not that I can think of, I think you’re correct on that.
I haven’t read Bacon’s research papers yet, but I will check them out
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 4th, 2007 at 7:50 am
The flat-worlder/earth, the center of the universe masses thought that a round earth solar centered system was “fringe”. That didn’t make them correct. Most peopel would rather believe the lies that are endorsed by the herd. Those “patterns” are ususally easier to swallow. (Zeitgeist)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 4th, 2007 at 7:59 am
There is one simply principle that improved conditions in any society: don’t eat where you poop and and don’t poop where you eat. And proper sanitation is not soley dependant on capitalism or free market, (which are not necessarily synonymous.) I see the perceived prosperity in the US as masked slavery to a system over which the average person has no control and cannot function without. When it all comes crashing down, which a debt-based economy has to eventually, most people won’t know how to survive on their own. I don’t call that prosperous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 4th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Wow! long weekend. Sorry for the typos: people, usually, simple, not simply. At least I got all the big words correct. LOL
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 4th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Ah, yes, the perennial Galileo argument. That can be used to justify just about anything, I guess.
I read “The Great Depression of 1990” by Ravi Bahtra, long ago, “Bankrupcy 1995” by Harry Figgie, Jr., “The Day of Reckoning” (forgot that author) not to mention “Famine 1975”. All these ideas went the way of Y2K. I have seen nothing but prosperity my whole life (I’m not far from 60) and I suspect that won’t change. Not that depressions don’t happen, but when they have occurred (1870, 1929, etc.) the economy tends to come back stronger that before the episode. They’re really price correction episodes, kind of like the housing market right now. Home value was just raising too fast and had to come down, which is a good thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 4th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Glad to see someone else reading Shermer, månesteiner. Sending some of these putative claims to the test I think has long been needed.
Regarding Bacon’s papers, they’re pretty abstruse but I have barely just enough math background to follow them. I really didn’t know what quantum computing was attempting to accomplish, but this has given me an idea. I wonder if there will be any on the market before the 2038 32-bit epoch date problem hits (not that I’ll be around)? But I guess everyone should be 64-bit before then. But the ideal of a boundless computing architecture (which I think is where it’s going) is pretty intriguing. But I have yet to understand the material properties that can allow a qubit its multiple states. More reading…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 4th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Okay, JQP and Manesteiner. I understand why you are not understanding me. I read (re-read) the first 10 pages of Dyer’s book and he talks about this force (intention) all around us and in everything. Sounds a lot like electricity actually, so if you’re not buying into his stuff, I can see where you’d have a hard time with what I was saying. The thing is, every lie, every deception, starts with a truth. Yes, as Tesla discovered, there is a “force” or “field” all around us and in everything. But that is where the truth of the matter ends with Dr. Dyer. From there he goes into contradiction and circular reasoning (pretzel logic.) On the one hand he seems to be preaching a sort of predestination, and then on the other hand a way to change that predestination or how we keep it from happening in our lives. But, predestination by definition is unchangable. I note that he himself has been unsuccessful in changing his when it comes to baldness and a hairy nose and ears. He is resigned to keep “trimming away” while he merely observes. Why won’t intention let him intend himself hair on his head?
So, back to Tesla for a moment. He discovered ways of harnessing energy out of thin air, so to speak. He likely discovered and developed a way of producing perpetual energy and/or motion. We can only surmise at this point, because at the same time that he was working on his discoveries and inventions, Edison and Westinghouse had already decided to take that same electricity, channel it through wires, and charge people for it. (Tesla would have given it to us for free.) So, once again, the ugly side of monopolistic capitalism (vs. free market) rears it’s ugly head. Instead of paying our electric bills, we could have been doing something else perhaps even something fun, with our resources. Rather, most people are hopelessly, helplessly tied into power grids, that when they fail, send the masses into a tail spin.
Because Westinghouse and Edison saw a real threat to their power, prestige, and profits, much of Tesla’s documentation of experiments and inventions were destroyed “mysteriously” (if memory serves, by an unexplained fire), and Tesla was driven to ruin. When lust for power and wealth rear their ugly heads, it seems the prophets of liberty are destroyed. (Dr. Gearson – 1930′s – would be another one.)
Orson Wells, before he died, became very interested in Tesla’s work, and began attempting to reconstruct if from the little that remains of it. He had limited success, but was still able to demonstrate a simple electrical event, that without understanding what was really happening, was mind boggling.
Just think of the prosperity that we could have enjoyed if we were free of the grid – if we really could be self-sufficient. Hmmm. Real freedom vs. perceived freedom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 4th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I see there was a lively discussion over the weekend.
I have to finish a project so I will be brief.
JQP: “Zer0, you appear to be emotionally worked up. It’s just a volley of ideas, no emotion necessary.”
I did not have any emotions up until Jodee showed up.
In fact I was bored to death reading the bland posts by you and others like you. It was like monitoring a conversation between robots, that were programed by the same programmer to appear human, to show disagreement but be in agreement at the core, to show emotion but be mechanical in their judgment and reasoning. I admit that Jodee got me excited when she rattled the robot cage and I’m not going to apologize or feel inadequate for expressing my emotions.
Looking at the history of progress I can say that it is free thinkers like Jodee that have pushed the envelope and fought against the current of ignorance and ridicule to discover new fertile planes while the general public (the sheep, the herd) kick and scream as they are pushed to the new plane, then reap the benefits munching on the delicious green grass but quickly forget the history of how and by whose “extra-ordinary” visions and efforts they got there. This history repeats itself the next time someone dares to separate from the heard and say “hey there is something new and different just beyond the next ridge (mental obstacle).
Does anyone know and remember Nikola Tesla other than a narrow layer of people? What he has contributed to the advancement of the civilization is very little understood by the “herd” and is mainly undermined and forgotten. Instead the heard credits others with his discoveries. There is so much that we don’t know about him and many others like him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 4th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Jodee, just saw your post after I posted mine. It is interesting that we both remembered Tesla at the same time. JQP would say it is coincidence but we know better than that
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 4th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
To JQP:
Regarding Dave Bacon’s writings, I took a peek but they are way over my head. I’ve got only a layman’s grasp of Quantum Physics, not enough to follow Dave Bacon.
“Glad to see someone else reading Shermer, månesteiner”
Back in the day, early 1980′s, my friends and I were amateur cyclists in the Phoenix area. We still remember Michael Shermer taking on the phenomenal Lon Haldeman in the Race Across America. So it’s with great affection, and nostalgia, that I read him today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5th, 2007 at 8:07 am
No, zer0, I think it’s a connected consciousness because who else would think of Nikola Tesla (or George Westinghouse, for that matter) when the word electricity comes up? Very rare indeed.
So, everything is really comprised of electricity? And here I thought it was ball bearings all this time. (At least, that’s what Fletch said.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Jodee, some things you type give me the image you’re a little bit Nikita Khrushchev mixed with Robespierre (and maybe with a little attitude of Emma the Red). So, once capitalism is stamped out (what will replace it, anyway?) will there be a reign of terror? Will the lower middle class on down (the ones without plasma TVs and with they’re Beta-max’s still in use) behead the wealthy class? It seems to me that by and large Americans aspire to the wealthy class, not despise it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Also, the national debt (if that is what you meant by a debt economy) is almost entirely owed (the interest) back to the same American economy that incurred it. So it’s circular, and not lost income. It’s like owing yourself $1,000.
But if you mean consumer debt, it is still a small percentage of GDP, so it’s covered. And if you mean government debt, that too is small percentage of GDP. It was not long ago that Italy’s national debt (total) was 110% of their GDP and yet they’re still thriving; no big collapses that I’ve heard of. Also, there is a trend towards capitalism lately: Canada recently elected Stephen Harper who opposes socialism; Angela Merkel recently elected in Germany who also ran against socialism; Nicolas Sarkozy is very pro-American capitalism and opposed the very socialistic Ségolène Royal; Gordon Brown of the U.K. was part of the labour movement that shifted it away from socialism.
Why is this happening? Because socialism is, largely, economically unsustainable. Not all of it, but too much of it is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5th, 2007 at 8:54 am
“…who…would think of Nikola Tesla (or George Westinghouse…) when the word electricity comes up?”
LOL. Good zinger, JQP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Zer0, I guess you’re not aware that Tesla is largely known by the public. In fact, there was an eighties hair band that even used his name. I don’t think I’ve met anyone who doesn’t know that name. It’s not that obscure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6th, 2007 at 6:05 am
JQP, Well, I guess civility is out the window once again. Very well. I think you may still be suffering residual brain fog from the last meds you were on. You’ve not been reading with any kind of understanding at all. It seems to me that you and your boys are just having fun picking on the girl. Oooo, but that would just be sexist, so that can’t be it.
Nikita Khrushchev would be one of those fascist dictators I referred to earlier, so try to get over yourself and follow what I’m really saying here. What replaces monopolistic capitalism is FREE MARKET!!! We have not enjoyed the benefits of a truly free market in some time. Thus, the Tesla point. There is no free market when it comes to energy, and that’s just one example. How many entrepreneus have invented alternative fuel cars, only to be quashed by the established automobile monopolies via paid lobbyists, “gifts” to key legislative and judicial figures, etc.? These pioneers and their inventions have all gone the way of the Tucker and the Red Car. In the absence of a free market, there is only a manipulated market, which inevitably puts wealth and liberty in the hands of an elite few and takes on various forms and degrees of fascism. Surely, you’ve heard of the disappearing middle class – it’s been in all the papers.
And BTW, I highly doubt that the general public knows who Tesla is. Most of them don’t even know the difference between Alexander Hamilton and George Hamilton.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Gary, only those who have gotten a decent education or bothered to educate themselves would connect Telsa with electricity. JQP is old enough to have had a 50/50 chance of going to public schools that actually taught relevent curriculum; either that, or the benefits from private education. That doesn’t apply to a vast number of the public today, which his “zinger” doesn’t take into account. You have now joined the ranks of the narrow-minded. Congratulations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Watched Wayne Dyer on PBS last night, just for kicks. (He is supposed to be the topic of this discussion, right?) So, as he touts the benefits of minimalism, I have to wonder: why does he need two houses? and why does his “entlightenment” cost 295.00-350.00, not including air fare to MAUI. If we only use (and therefore, only NEED,) 20% of what we have, why does he have 80% more (Florida and Maui are NOT cheap places to live,) than those who so desparately need his instruction and vision? Oh, yeah. They gave him that 80% they weren’t using.
So, here’s the formula: take commonly understood words, like “intention”, and alter the meaning to some high-minded esoteric application. This helps keep the unthinking masses off balance and makes them think you know something they don’t. This in turn, elevates you to a higher position than they. And just in case they start thinking you’re arrogant, remind them of how humbe you really are. (Truly humble people don’t have to tell others they’re humble, they just are.) Now throw in just enough truth, recognizable even to the non-thinking masses, to make it sound like you know what you’re talking about. Then when you hit a conundrum, which of course, you have created with your esoteric crap, jump to a personal and amusing anecdotal story from your enlightened past to “illustrate” the point. Laughter makes the herd forget the (You can tell this by all the nodding heads in the crowd.) Continue with unquantifiable claims of peace and happiness, and at the end of your “sermon”, collect the profits.
I certainly don’t begrudge anyone financial success. I’m all for free market enterprise, as I have repeatedly stated. I simply object to deceipt as a means of obstaining it. However, I as much as I may personally object, I object even more that so many people fall for the deception, because that’s where the free market fails. It fails when people stop thinking for themselves and allow charlatans to tell them what to value and what to think. Enter the subtle slavery of religion and a manipulated market. (Which are probably not all that different from each other.)
I have another question – If Wayne Dyer is the master of conflict resolution he claims to be, why is he divorced – twice? I can understand maybe the first one going to pot – young, stupid, chose unwisely, etc.; only had one kid. But, to then divorce a woman you’ve had 7 kids with – what’s up with that?! Did mommy get tired of trying to keep some level of order in a house full of kids while daddy sat on the couch and “let them work things out for themselves?” Just curious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6th, 2007 at 7:04 am
ZerO. Appreciate your remarks. You’re probably young – maybe late 20′s/early 30′s – just a guess. But you give me hope for the future. Keep having kids and teaching them to think for themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Jodee, Thanks for the complement about my perceived age. Chronologically I am 43 years old, but biologically I feel as young and as healthy as when I was 30. I think what threw you off was the age of my daughter, or maybe my attitude.
I’m not going to guess your age, but whatever it is you are very wise for your age (or any age for that matter). You have done a great deal of self education, because none of the stuff you have acquired can be learned in any school.
My hope for the future is my daughter. I am planing to retire early and take on her education myself. When she graduates from my school she will be an independent and truly free person that can lead the heard and not follow it. She will know how to grow her own food, how to be off the grid (or greed), etc. She will be brave and fearless, ready to tackle any issue and come out victorious.
Seeing her energy and curiosity makes me hopeful. I will not let her down and I’m sure she will not let me or herself down either when the time comes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Jodee:
1. The ‘zinger’ was funny, like it or not.
2. Your comments and observations are intelligent and your sex is irrelevant.
3. You seem to be a very angry person. Who, exactly, are you pissed off at?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6th, 2007 at 11:20 am
…the world, maybe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6th, 2007 at 11:56 am
JQP (and others), knowing someone’s name does not equate to knowing the person and their worth.
I know about the Tesla band, I have their fist album. In my collage days I played an electric guitar and was into Hard Rock and Heavy Metal. So, don’t think that you are giving me an education on Tesla’s name and it’s use by the herd.
In all my collage and university years I don’t recall reading anything about Tesla other than a brief and inaccurate biography in textbooks and learning that the tesla (symbol T) is the SI derived unit of magnetic flux density.
If you think that associating Tesla’s name with electricity separates you from the herd, think again. If you or anyone else really knew about Tesla and his work, would know about his bladeless turbine that can also be used as a pump, about his air-to-air air conditioner that can cool air down to -40deg C without using any hazardous refrigerants, etc, etc. His contribution to areas other than electricity has been undermined just as bad.
You should go look this up and educate yourself, so next time you can associate Tesla’s name with more than electricity.
You stated that you read 300 books a year. Seems to me that you are more concerned with quantity than quality. I would suggest that for the next year, for every book you read that supports a given viewpoint you read a book that contradicts or presents an alternative to that viewpoint. In my opinion you have a very narrow and one-sided view of the world around you.
You need to expand your mind and expose it to wider spectrum of knowledge that’s out there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Who said I didn’t know the Tesla story? Jumping to conclusions again. The point was that the association is not remote enough to support your point: that it was some kind of universal connection. I never touched on the Tesla story, only the association which you made clear was significant. I doubt many do know the story and struggle of Tesla and Westinghouse. But your point was that you thought it was significant and unusual that you too thought of Tesla, brought my name into it and, so, that warranted comment.
Your remarks on what I know or may not know is just speculation. Besides, it’s not a way to make a good rebuttal.
By the way, a lot of books I read don’t support my view. I read all of Dyer’s for example, including that latest screed. But you’re speculating, again, and not basing even that on any evidence. You have no information to determine the spectrum of what I read. In fact, many of my points are precisely stated in a way that give clues that I’m already familiar with the arguments. For example, I said “life span” and not “life expectancy” because I already knew the standard argument for “why is life expectancy increased” is “improved waste management.” Which Jodee is exactly right about for “life expectancy” but not “life span.” (They’re two different measurements. If you’re well read on history, then you already know this.) So, if knew the topic you would have caught that subtle frame up. But I was glad to see Jodee respond with what is a generally accepted—yes, external review weeds!–position.
Also, I don’t think sarcasm is out of line. But some just have great big hot buttons I sometimes can’t resist pushing them.
Finally, why do so many come to discussion forums not to actually discuss but to find support? I respond mostly to those who disagree with me (which has come down to you two) because that is the point. I’m not seeking any support, because I’ve heard almost everyone of these arguments before. In the eighties when was an options trader I heard about capitalism collapsing all the time. Mostly from those identified as “survivalists.” When I was working on my graduate degree in economics, I debated a lot with a good friend (and later an employee) about the sustainability of a monetary fiat system vs. the Austrian economic system. (Which is one of the many arguments for a collapse of the U.S. economy.) I was attempting to smoke out Jodee’s thoughts on how and why the economy would collapse. But, I hold a undergrad degree in world history, a grad degree in computer science and in macro economics. So, I’m pretty secure with my education.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I just noticed an incomplete statement in that post. I meant to say, “yes, external review weeds out untruths.” Bad editing on my part.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Jodee, I haven’t gone through all your last rebuttals (I just flew in from Texas) but I noticed the “Free market” response. Very encouraging, indeed. You’ve piqued my interest. Just need a little time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
And, zer0, I don’t mean to pick on you at all. However, when you lay down your opinions like that you should expect criticism–and when you do it passionately, then you’re setting yourself up for possible ridicule. If I’ve been too rough and it bothers you, then I apologize. I welcome any sarcasm back. I can take it and deserve some at this point.
One other thing, Jodee, I’ve glossed over some points you’ve made that I thought were really good and I fully agree with, but I got distracted because I thought you were setting up for a socialist or survivalist position and also with the electricity thing. I was jumping to conclusions, too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Gary, it does appear as if gender is indeed the issue. When you guys spar with snide sarcasm you’re “making a point” or “defending a position”. When I send it back to you, I must be “angry”- at the whole world, no less. Typical male response. Women dish it out and they’re catty, bitchy, bitter, angry, etc. Maybe I’m just annoyed that you can’t seem to come up with an intelligent response.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Jodee:
I apologize if I’ve offended you. I’m not qualified to debate economic, political, medical or even social issues like you, Zer0 and JQP. I only got in on this because of what I felt was Wayne Dyer’s inappropriate use of certain scientific concepts and Taoist philosophical principles.
Good luck with your continuing debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Ouch!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
LOL, may this lively discussion never end . And BTW, where are u, HavAgr8Day. Please come back to help us resolve: “Energy?” Wayne Dyer? Does “intention” work? The world’s problems? Good night.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
“Consciousness collapses the wave function into actual particles that exist in space and time. Consciousness experiences energy as matter.
Consciousness is the energy that influences energy. All energy is actually consciousness, therefore it is consciousness influencing itself.
The observer is not apart from the observation. The experimenter is not apart from the experiment.
The observer simultaneously plays a part in creating the reality he is observing. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of consciousness states that no pure measurement is possible without creation. Physicists who deal in quantum mechanics state: “You cannot (objectively) observe something without changing it in the process.”
This experiment also shows that God remains unmanifest unless you participate. Without God, we cannot. Without us, God would not. We are all co-creators of reality with God. God moves only when there is intention or prayer. Faith is focus.
Everything is energy and energy is mental. The mind creates and controls reality.
Our thoughts have the very power to shape our reality. This is how the Law of Attraction works. What we focus on most of the time, we get. The observer creates reality simply by observing.”
__________________________________________
Good God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
LOL, nice paragraph.
“What we focus on most of the time, we get.”
Crapzolla, I’m going to get a lot of mathematical equations about quantum algorithms?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
“Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the revolutionary theory developed early in the century to account for the anomalous behavior of light and atoms, are being misconstrued so as to imply that only thoughts are real and that the physical universe is the product of a cosmic mind to which the human mind is linked throughout space and time. This interpretation has provided an ostensibly scientific basis for various mind-over-matter claims, from ESP to alternative medicine. “Quantum mysticism” also forms part of the intellectual backdrop for the postmodern assertion that science has no claim on objective reality.
The word “quantum” appears frequently in New Age and modern mystical literature. For example, physician Deepak Chopra (1989) has successfully promoted a notion he calls quantum healing, which suggests we can cure all our ills by the application of sufficient mental power.
According to Chopra, this profound conclusion can be drawn from quantum physics, which he says has demonstrated that “the physical world, including our bodies, is a response of the observer. We create our bodies as we create the experience of our world” (Chopra 1993, 5). Chopra also asserts that “beliefs, thoughts, and emotions create the chemical reactions that uphold life in every cell,” and “the world you live in, including the experience of your body, is completely dictated by how you learn to perceive it” (Chopra 1993, 6). Thus illness and aging are an illusion and we can achieve what Chopra calls “ageless body, timeless mind” by the sheer force of consciousness.
Since no convincing, reproducible evidence for psychic phenomena has been found, despite 150 years of effort, this is a flimsy basis indeed for quantum consciousness.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Thus…
“The conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, promulgated by Bohr and still held by most physicists, says nothing about consciousness. It concerns only what can be measured and what predictions can be made about the statistical distributions of ensembles of future measurements. As noted, the wave function is simply a mathematical object used to calculate probabilities. Mathematical constructs can be as magical as any other figment of the human imagination-like the Starship Enterprise or a Roadrunner cartoon. Nowhere does quantum mechanics imply that real matter or signals travel faster than light. In fact, superluminal signal propagation has been proven to be impossible in any theory consistent with conventional relativity and quantum mechanics (Eberhard and Ross 1989).”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
JQP: “The point was that the association is not remote enough to support your point: that it was some kind of universal connection.”
.
I did not imply that it was a universal connection, I left it open ended. I just remarked that “it was interesting”.
JQP: “Also, I don’t think sarcasm is out of line. But some just have great big hot buttons I sometimes can’t resist pushing them.”
Well, if you like pushing the button then you shouldn’t complain about the “hot” responses you get
JQP” “Finally, why do so many come to discussion forums not to actually discuss but to find support? I respond mostly to those who disagree with me (which has come down to you two) because that is the point.”
I agree with you completely John. Even though we exchange some “heavy punches” in this forum (and you have to admit that Jodee packs some really heavy ones) we return to our corners as “good sportsmen/sportswomen”. Even though Jodee and I feel and think along the same lines we don’t need each others support to fight our battles. And we don’t mean to gang up on you (I hope you don’t feel that we do). We can take turns if you like
Let’s have a great weekend and come back ready to “rumble”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
For zer0:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=31445223
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
JQP, impressive educational resume’ to be sure, but what that tells me, in view of some of your responses, is that you’re looking at all these issues through the eyes and/or under the influence of people who likely have more letters after their names than you do after yours. Honestly, you do come across as narrow-minded in many of your remarks. And the fact that you are “secure in [your] education” seems to imply that you think you have nothing more to learn, or that you at least know more than anyone who has no letters or fewer letters after their names. Perhaps it was simply a poor choice of words on your part, but in presenting your positions, you do tend to give the impressions that ZerO expressed.
So far, the assumed implications of me as person have included: demon from Amityville, contrarian, ex-hippy druggy, fringe (radical), and socialist communist/fascist sympathizer. And why? just because I have made the informed choice of using alternative health care and I recognize an electrical nature to things, (based, BTW, on the fact that EVERY molecule is made up of electrical matrices, not solid particles)? You have made or concurred with most of these assumptions either directly or indirectly. Whether you intend it or not, that makes you appear to be narrow-minded and unwilling to consider anything outside your own educational sphere or experience.
The ex-hippy inference is particularly hilarious, since I have never smoked anything, not even once, in my entire life, and never experimented with narcotics legal or illegal. In fact, I’m allergic to most drugs, even over-the-counter types (I’m talking hives and a number of other unpleasant manifestations).
I don’t have your expensive education or letters after my name, but I do have a pretty good grasp of logic, an extensive ever-growing research library, and an insatiable thirst for truth in all arenas. The main difference between us that I see, is that when I read/study data, I am not under the third party influence of someone else’s opinion about it – someone who is even more invested in their letters than I would be as one of his/her students under pressure to make a grade and get letters after my name, too. I’m free to apply my logic and critical thinking and come to my own conclusions or even determine that the data is inconclusive or questionable. (and I’m not implying that you’ve never done the latter.) I’m not invested in letters after my name, so I have nothing to jeopardize in changing or expanding my views.
It is splitting hairs to differentiate between life span and life expectancy in this discussion, since life expectancy can’t be determined without the data on life span. There is a distinct correlation between sanitation and life span, ergo, life expectancy, as noted by any number of well respected researchers. Furthermore, all alternative medicine cannot be lumped into one box. There are many modes, most of which are useful to many, none of which are useful to all, and some of which are total crap. Only someone willing to accept truth at any cost can accept it where ever it is found, regardless of the box someone may have put it in.
I don’t gainsay the value of your expensive education, but it has it’s limitations and you academic types often come off as arrogant and close-minded, perhaps because you are still paying off your student loans, or it hasn’t been that long since you did. I can see how it would be tempting to assume that the expense has rendered you an unsurpassable knowledge in most fields of debate – except, of course for debates with people who have even more letters after their names.
Of course, this is just the opinion of a lowly lay person.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Is this discussion getting really weird, or what?
Maybe the wave is collapsing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Doh!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Question: why is science used as support for fringe ideas when convenient, but refuted when it contradicts?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 12:59 am
And who is “Crapzolla?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 7:41 am
“Question: why is science used as support for fringe ideas when convenient, but refuted when it
contradicts?”
The same reason politicians point to phenomenom X, Y or Z when it supports their agenda, but downplay or ignore the same when it doesn’t. Or that a baseball player will cite a certain training regimen as the reason for his successful performance this season, but offer a different explanation when the same regimen yields poor results the next season.
When the mission is only to persuade an audience, which sometimes, sadly, includes oneself (for example, just listen to the excuses people come up with as to why their ex dumped them), the standards of argument sufficient to persuasion are all that’s needed. Honest thinking takes work, and sometimes hurts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 7:58 am
True. But the interesting cases are when the premise is that science can’t prove all or science is stubborn and (always) on the verge of coming around to whatever mysticism is on display–then scientific reasoning is used to support it. Yet the reverse does not occur. Science never uses faith to support its position. Reason is always the inescapable component.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 8:43 am
I do have a question for Bacon regarding a statement above: “In fact, superluminal signal propagation has been proven to be impossible in any theory consistent with conventional relativity and quantum mechanics.”
What about entanglement?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 9:07 am
JQP, impressive educational resume’ to be sure, but what that tells me, in view of some of your responses, is that you’re looking at all these issues through the eyes and/or under the influence of people who likely have more letters after their names than you do after yours. Honestly, you do come across as narrow-minded in many of your remarks. And the fact that you are “secure in [your] education” seems to imply that you think you have nothing more to learn, or that you at least know more than anyone who has no letters or fewer letters after their names. Perhaps it was simply a poor choice of words on your part, but in presenting your positions, you do tend to give the impressions that ZerO expressed.
I’m free to apply my logic and critical thinking and come to my own conclusions or even determine that the data is inconclusive or questionable. (and I’m not implying that you’ve never done the latter.) I’m not invested in letters after my name, so I have nothing to jeopardize in changing or expanding my views.
So far, the assumed implications of me as person have included: demon from Amityville, contrarian, ex-hippy druggy, fringe (radical), and socialist communist/fascist sympathizer. And why? just because I have made the informed choice of using alternative health care and I recognize an electrical nature to things, (based, BTW, on the fact that EVERY molecule is made up of electrical matrices, not solid particles)? You have made or concurred with most of these assumptions either directly or indirectly. Whether you intend it or not, that makes you appear to be narrow-minded and unwilling to consider anything outside your own educational sphere or experience.
The ex-hippy inference is particularly hilarious, since I have never smoked anything, not even once, in my entire life, and never experimented with narcotics legal or illegal. In fact, I’m allergic to most drugs, even over-the-counter types (I’m talking hives and a number of other unpleasant manifestations).
I don’t have your expensive education or letters after my name, but I do have a pretty good grasp of logic, an extensive ever-growing research library, and an insatiable thirst for truth in all arenas. The main difference between us that I see, is that when I read/study data, I am not under the third party influence of someone else’s opinion about it – someone who is even more invested in their letters than I would be as one of his/her students under pressure to make a grade and get letters after my name, too. I’m an equal opportunity offender
It is splitting hairs to differentiate between life span and life expectancy in this discussion, since life expectancy can’t be determined without the data on life span. There is a distinct correlation between sanitation and life span, ergo, life expectancy, as noted by any number of well respected researchers. Furthermore, all alternative medicine cannot be lumped into one box. There are many modalities, most of which are useful to many, none of which are useful to all, and some of which are total crap. Only someone willing to accept truth at any cost can accept it where ever it is found, regardless of the box someone may have put it in.
I don’t gainsay the value of your expensive education, but it has it’s limitations and you academic types often come off as arrogant and close-minded, perhaps because you are still paying off your student loans, or it hasn’t been that long since you did. I can see how it would be tempting to assume that the expense has rendered you an unsurpassable knowledge in most fields of debate – except, perhaps for debates with people who have even more letters after their names.
Of course, this is just the opinion of a lowly lay person.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Sorry, everyone for the double post. My computer glitched.
That’s one of the many benefits of dial-up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Two guys in a bar are arguing whether women are equally as good as men in math. “I can prove to you women are not as good,” exclaims one. “When that waitress comes over I will ask her to integrate x squared and I bet you $5 she won’t know what I’m talking about.” Making sure he won’t lose the bet, the other excuses himself to catch the waitress in the back of the room and give her the answer. “Look,” he says, “that guy over there will ask you a question and when he does just say ‘one third x cubed,’ OK?” She agrees. When the time comes and he asks, “what’s the integral of x squared?” “One third x cubed,” she replies. Then as she walks away she looks over her shoulder and says, “plus a constant!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Entanglement does not allow superluminal signaling. Any experiment which shows superluminal signaling would tell you that quantum theory, or at least normal relativistic quantum field theory, is wrong (always a possibility, but no such experiment has ever been performed.)
That being said entanglement is very strange, representing a correlation which is stronger than that which can be reproduced by people doing classical things and communicated slower than the speed of light. In other words, if you try to explain the quantum world by a classical world which doesn’t allow superluminal signaling, you will fail. If you think about this for a second, you’ll realize that the converse of this is not that quantum theory allows superluminal signaling.
Most physicists just say “accept that you cannot explain the world classically” and then carry on doing their calculations. This is a very pragmatic response. However quantum entanglement really is strange and so thinking hard about it has led people to realize that it allows different power computers than our current computers. That’s what I work on: quantum computation.
Crapzolla is just a word I made up which is kind of like “ah crap.” Pardon my language.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Hmmm, a testing post…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Not sure what’s happenin’ with computer, so will try to post a few short posts and see if they will work…
Hey, Hi everyone!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Otay. Worked.
I really want/need to post a few things:
1. clean up my messy last post
2. write a post that I think the universe wants me to share
(Really – otherwise, I’d skip it)
3. and write one last one that my conscious feels sort of required to…..
so let’s see how fast i get through it, may have to wait a bit if the posting is slow
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Messy last post:
JQ – I DID feel love for you
as soon as re-claimed my time. (Btw, my love or not really was irrelevent – I wasn’t trying to set myself up as a love and peace expert – only interjecting those words a lot because I felt the engine was wired a little too tight in terms of the conversation) and that throwing out LOVE, LOVE, LOVE might get the engine a little lubricated, so to speak 
.
Perhaps toss it a little over into the right hemisphere – where WONDER DOES SOMETIMES HAPPEN (in my humble experience).
Anyway, my last post to you reflected frustration and distress (which I’ll address directly in my last post) – and my desire to get my lil rear outta here so that I could get to the work I needed to do.
But it left me with a sense that I’d thrown a bit of a hissy fit
And if I think I make a mess – I like to clean it up. So, onward? Yes? Good!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Okay,
what I feel the universe wants me to post:
(For those just joining, I had previously posted that I had seen Dyer’s PB fundraising talk on INSPIRATION, and that it had resonated on probably every level possible with me…)
SO, after posting several Dyer/creativity related posts – and then writing that I really didn’t have much more to say and would probably be dropping off… here’s what happened.
I DID mention that I came across Dyer’s book on INSPIRATION at Barnes and Noble – and then made another post somewhat about that. However, here’s what I didn’t say…….
(If i write a too long post, it seems to disappear, so will continue on next post…)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
What I feel the Universe wants me to say CONT.
Here’s what I didn’t write:
I didn’t go to B&N to get/look at Dyer’s book.
I went to there to purchase a friend’s recently released Gift Book (something I like to do for all my writing friends).
When I couldn’t find the Gift Book in the Gift Book section – I went to the book sellers station and asked if they carried it.
The book seller said they did – but it had been stocked in the ‘self-help’ section.
As I followed the book-seller to this section, my mind was completely pre-occupied by a charming “growing up in Texas” story she was telling me… until she located my friend’s book and handed it to me.
I thanked her, and as she walked away, I looked back at the shelf to see if there were any addtl copies of the book left (something many writers like to know for some odd-ball but fun reason).
Anyway, when I looked at the spot where she had pulled my friend’s book from – I saw Dyer’s book on INSPIRATION (no other copies of friend’s book).
The INSPIRATION book was on the shelf just above, maybe one or two books to the left.
I didn’t think much, just grabbed it along with my friend’s and went to sit down for the last few minutes before the store closed.
(BTW, my friend’s last name begins with an L, and of course, Dyer’s begins with a …… oh, isn’t this fun???)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Anyway, having only seen portions of my friend’s book, I couldn’t resist diving into it right away – plus, gift book texts are generally short, fun (but the best ones pack a lot into those few words – i think).
And so, I was just finishing my friend’s book when I heard last call.
Hmmmm…. There was Dyer’s book sittin on my lap, i hadn’t thought through what i was going to do with it – didn’t have time to skim it. Ummm…
OKAY, I’m buying it.
The next day, while PROCRASTINATING from writing some correspondence that was for some reason difficult for me – I opened up his book, (PROCRASTINATING I THOUGHT) and skimmed it for about 15-20 minutes (later posting a few thoughts about what I’d read).
However, didn’t post this: the last thing I read in it (that the universe sort of inhales/exhales, gives/receives, etc) clicked somewhere inside of me – because when I sat down to write the correspondence that had been tricking me up for over two weeks – all of a sudden EVERYTHING flowed. It flowed because I realized that I needed to thank the person more than anything else. (Technically, professionally, I had – but in my heart, I knew given what I had received in our last interaction, that it wasn’t spiritually nearly enough.) Thus, as soon as my desire shifted to what I truly felt comfortable doing – thanking her for something more than worthy of that gratitude – everything else fell into a real, natural, RIGHT context. Two weeks of tail chasing – and finally – AHHH. Good. YAY.
***********************
About a week later, was feeling stumped about something else, opened Dyer’s book, spent about five minutes skimming a chapter – and the same thing happened.
Those are some good results for what I kept thinking was just a fluke and few minutes of time procrastinatin…….
*********************
After this second situation, I began to think, you know, this is startin to feel a little bit like some good ole synchronicity!!!!!!! (sometimes the experiences are a bit more BOLD and SHOCKING frankly – but the one above was still very fruitful.)
Anyway, thought – maybe I’m spose to write this on this board – but, feeling as pressed for time and as occasionally selfish as I am – put it off – UNTIL,
yesterday, I thought, what is WEDGED between this (puppy)gate and doorway. I looked down, and saw Dyer’s lovely face (and butterfly on his finger) looking up at me.
OKAY!!! ALRIGHTY!!! Ya got my attention!! I’ll write the post!!!
(Everything else on the corner table was undisturbed).
So, Universe, here is that post.
(BTW, i don’t even know if any of Dyer’s other books were on the shelf – didn’t look.)
Also, just a tip, writin these posts are a lot more fun when you have a little puppy layin fast asleep on your left shoulder…….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
What I feel morally compelled to post:
David Bacon has his name/identity to what he writes. Thus, write what ya want Mr. Dr. Bacon, cuz, YOU are standing behind it. And if Dyer ever wants to address it honestly – he has the opportunity (somethin tells me – he probably won’t find the need – but that’s no insult to you Bac.
However, if you (like me) are using a name that allows you anonymity – then, I think you need to be a little more responsible when discussing your views on a real, live human being. (Discussing concepts? Okay, let it rip if ya need to. A human being? Well, if you’re going to really do a slice and dice job – then I think you need to do it the cloak of anonymity.)
I’m assuming that people all over the world have access to this public site.
JQ, I’m not trying to single you out, oh, heck, to an extent I am, so I’ll just choke the truth out of myself.
JQ, if you reviewed your posts about Dyer – some of what you say/said would be considered slander in my book. The words you used to describe him, his publisher, other related to him, etc. – were really, really – not just critical – but downright tearing apart, and in my book, (said in an understated way, really
– rude.
I think when you start alleging as much as you did in your earlier posts (and I’m not trying to drag those up now, just address a concept about that) – that YOU REALLY NEED TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE, IDENTIFY WHO YOU ARE, WHO YOU ARE AFFILIATED WITH – AND allow others to have a true sense of who the real person is making all of these allegations.
Again, debating ideas is one thing, but what I wrote above something entirely different.
Having said that, in your previous posts, you mentioned that there were many things that you thought Dyer had expressed that were positive and helpful. You also mentioned that you believed he was SINCERE. I understood you to be saying that during earlier years in your life, you had gotten some positive out of his talks, etc.
And so, I ask you – why not now offer him the same back?? Why not approach him with the desire to be helpful? Why not approach him sincerely?
Why not express any concerns you might have with him in an honest, forthright manner, that might help yourself, potentially him (if any of it seems right to him – based on your description of him as being somebody who is sincere and wanting to help, I’d guess that he’d want to consider what you said – if done in kindness.)
Anyway, that was essentially what my last-post hissy fit was about.
I thought the way you were addressing him, as well as others loosely related to him – bordered on slander. I actually felt physical pain reading your posts -and thus tried to ID them early on, and then skip them for the most part…
(guess my technique didn’t work too well in the end huh???)
Anyway, when your comments started reaching farther then those areas (into the realm of Angels for example) – I just had the visceral sense of you being like a bull in a china shop – and HAD to get out of here.
Which, guess I did.
My last point in this post –
PLEASE know that not all people come to this site to debate. Some are aware that they can share a thought or two, and that that thought may reach someone who will resonate with it – or not.
Personally, sometimes I feel as if I’ve fallen into a lucky tub of butter (in terms of how much fun I get to have in creative areas, and in the realm of spirit and synchronicity) – and sometimes you just want others to have the chance to experience it too… as possible. We’re all different in so many different ways.
But the last thing that I want to do is spend time debating anything. Maybe pop up and share, but that’s about it (and nobody need agree – at least, until they one day fall in to that same tub of happy butter and go, what the hay? This really exists????? Wow life can be SOMETIMES glorious.)
xox.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
And btw, just for good measure …
i bet there’s a whole lot of other tubs of happy somethin or others out there that i haven’t fallen in to yet…….
sounds sort of fun thought.
Dusky dark here now – but still time to ease into the eve. Thanks for reading all of my thoughts if ya got through them.
g’nite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Good god. Slander? You need to lighten up. You take things far too seriously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Yeah, I’m feeling the unconditional love now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Have you looked at this whole site? Bacon’s whole resume is on here, his research papers (with his name on them), the work he is doing, etc.
And what is this if-Dyer-wants-to-contact us business? I don’t know, doesn’t sound like both feet are on the ground. Some of the occasional lofty remarks made here, as if we were saying some really important things, are just laughable. If Dyer feels any of this is important enough (he probably has better things to do like meditating on his navel), he can post a message and I’ll email him. It’s that simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Regarding Hay House and publishers, I really asked that question in sincerity. But it sounds like you freelance write and are not commissioned. (I’m not saying anything bad about freelancing at all.)
One of the responsibilities of any non-fiction book publisher is fact checking. This is what got James Frey’s publisher, “In a Million Pieces,” in so much trouble. Just look at some Hay House’s offerings: a series on “angelic therapy,” which is counseling for your relationship with your guardian angels. Are you kidding me? I’m sorry, but that kind of nonsense is just not right to peddle to an unsuspecting market. They are making money off a gullible audience, which is in no way moral–and yet what they claim so much to be. I feel no need to apologize for calling out what is clearly a rip off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Me, my wife, and my youngest granddaughter. Last year. Anything else you’ll just have to glean from my aura.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I embedded an anchored image link, but it didn’t take. Oh well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Hey JQ,
although I don’t read auras (but I also don’t discount that there is the potential that some people MIGHT) – here’s what I’m thinkin after your last 2 posts:
i’m thinkin it’s bright, shiny and sparkly – cuz your last 2 posts seemed playful and fun.
Hey!!! Good!!!!!!!!
And frankly, reading a post from you that talks about your wife, and your youngest GRANDDAUGHTER (congrats!) just makes me feel happy.
So, i’m gleanin that my aura is a lil bit brighter now too.
Anyway…….
gotsta-go. Wanna sit in the meadow so some butterflys can land on me (never works if i chase ‘em).
ps tried to post this comment at exactly the same time as your post about the image popped up – and my post disappeared (oh, it was much more entertaining and better in every way than this one
)
pss there is a saying in the foyer/entrance to my home “never look down on anyone unless you are helping him up.”
Good words to read i think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Well, I guess this is the only way I can do it. Again, wife, me, granddaughter.
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r317/Retromingent/Nov_2006.jpg
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
What a wonderful picture!
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
A quite sleepy me (who just read Kate’s post) adds … very much so!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Ditto, (the picture). Welcome back HavAgr8Day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Looks like it was a calm weekend. Nothing exciting took place.
JQP, thanks for the photo. Now we can place a face to the name. Thanks for the link to Tesla band also.
I have a suggestion. Let’s pick an interesting and controversial subject and debate. Actually, let everyone who is interested, propose 3 subjects and we can vote and pick one out of the bunch.
Let’s make it a productive debate. I don’t have much time to dedicate to this forum so for me every hour counts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Jodee,
Did you have a chance to research the info on Tom Beardon’s site?
What do you think?
I just got the 2 DVDs and am eager to set some time aside to watch.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Some of you already know all that you are about to read here but it looks like a few on this website think they are “KNOWLEDGE” itself!
The more we know, the more we find out how much more there is yet to know and consequently just how much we truly dont know.
Some people on this website critize that which has no “scientific basis” AS IF science DEFINES reality when it merely tries to understand it and live with it and it is ALWAYS in a state of learning. I will call this type of arrogant thinking SCIENTIFIC FUNDAMENTALISM.
This is no different than the Christian fundamentalists who reject any idea that has no basis on the Bible.
If we compare REALITY with an Elephant, Science has a hold of the Elephant’s head, Religion has a hold of the Elephants heart and New Agers have a hold of the Elephant’s back, ALL the while each group is screaming at the other, LOOK AT ME, I have a hold of REALITY and THIS is what it looks like!!!
One day each self labeled individual will find that just like an elephant, REALITY was much bigger than any one group could put its arms around!
While I have an appreciation for science and I have had some serious spiritual experiences (enough to send you know who among you asking for PROOF or better yet a Straight Jacket) I can see “that which I DONT know” spanning out without end in the horizon just as when the first explorers left land and the farther they sailed the more ocean they saw and the more unknown territory they became aware of!
The UNIVERSE is a pretty DARN BIG THING! Who among us mere mortals can say they have IT contained within the relatively microscopic confounds of their small and underutelized brains!
I include my brain in the description here as well, I am NO BETTER and of course, NO WORSE!
Good Luck and may you be at peace with the fact that:
No matter how much you think you know, WHAT YOU DONT KNOW is actually infinitely more than what you actually DO know!
I am at peace with it. We are all ignorant and we are all wise in our own ways. Growing and learning are Life’s infinite journey and none of us can truthfully claim to have arrived! I found out through this website that to debate or argue personal life experiences and beliefs is like arguing which country or food is better with someone who has not lived in our country or tasted our food and who has NO PLANS on doing so either!
Good Luck y’all!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
My goodness. Yes, I have to agree, “New Agers have a hold of the Elephant’s back…”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
I’ll repeat it again, some people want to debate the merits of countries without ever venturing off the borders of their own land.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Actually, you’re a bit mistaken. I’ve ventured and it turned out to be Disneyland, so I came home.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
If only you New Agers knew what I was doing for a paralyzed women in Texas, you’d never bug me again. But I won’t elaborate because it is about action and not intention.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Let me try to impart some life experience. I was a teenager in the sixties and grew up in California through the whole love generation movement. However, those professing to love everyone rarely actually did any real work to help anyone. They just talked about it. Then later came my personal inspiration. Much, much later in life I worked for a corporate VP who was the meanest SOB I’ve ever known. He typically would make people cry (literally) in meetings and wouldn’t take anything from anyone. After working for him for a while, I come to learn that every year he takes 3 full months off (not for vacation, mind you) to go to Costa Rica and build homes for the poor. (This was somebody with a lot of money.) One year, he even wound up in a Costa Rica jail doing so because of a car accident. He never talked about this charity he did. He kept it a secret. (It was an accident I found out.) He never preached to others about giving to the poor. He never espoused to love everyone. But come to find out, he just did it. I started doing the same with him. Then I met others like him.
In my life, I have found those who talk about love and charity typically (not always, mind you, but typically) actually do the least. You see, you really can’t help others unless you have the means to do so (money, free time, etc.). You have to help yourself first.
So, that’s my speech about charity and how it relates to self-interest. Keep the kind words and just do more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
“I have a suggestion. Let’s pick an interesting and controversial subject and debate. Actually, let everyone who is interested, propose 3 subjects and we can vote and pick one out of the bunch. Let’s make it a productive debate.”
But the problem that I see is that even with this 1st subject “Wayne Dyer and his intentionality quantum physics mutterings” is that an actual productive debate hasn’t really occurred.
Granted, there’s been lots of conversation. But, the parties from the opposing sides haven’t agreed upon a basic starting point, a common definition of terms, beginning premises, nothing.
No one from either side has advanced a claim that has then been conceeded or refuted by the other side. No movement of the argument.
All we have so far is people expressing their opinions to each other. That’s not a meaningful debate. That’s people each taking their turns on the soapbox.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
This is why Dyer’s relentless self-promotion bothers me. Chopra’s, too. Yes, they do good things, but I have met those who I believe do a lot more. Further, those I admire put action before all else. In fact, that was one of David Bacon’s original comments in the forum. “No talk of action.” Why so much emphasis on the thoughts and emotion when it is the action that really helps.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I vote on the dihedral hidden subgroup problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Honestly, the only real way to have a debate is with those who have been trained in debate. By that I mean people who understand rhetoric (true sense of the word) and logical fallacies (I think Aristotle identified 127 of them) that most fall into. If you can debate and not get into circular reasoning and such, then it really can be productive. But if you don’t know how to look for those pitfalls, then it inevitably becomes emotional and, as you say, winds up as turns on the soapbox. It’s like anything else, it takes practice.
So, I don’t mean to rain on your parade, but I’m not holding out much hope here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Well, i’m not against y’all debating – just, i’ll skim read those parts
.
However, JQ, just so you know – i think a lot of people join the intention, thoughts… action.
I’d guess most people on this blog do so.
In terms of my action (oh, bore… more ’bout me, i’ll try to keep it short…enuf) –
I volunteered in children’s hospitals when I was an undergraduate – volunteered in homeless shelters for women and children (primarily) during grad school (this extended through the ten years I worked on an inpatient hospital unit – because having had a relationship with the woman minister that ran one particular unit, the unit I later worked on essentially adopted that shelter.)
Anyway, I could go on and on with that – however, I still think the other side is important as well.
One of my best friends is a trauma and vascular surgeon – and goes to Mexico fairly regularly to volunteer medical services. But if he was an ogre and made the people around him cry – I would think he was doing something wonderful, and something sort of sad.
Helping others, helping oneself (I agree with what you wrote about that), and allowing yourself happiness (something for me that helps me to have a full cup when I dip into it to help others) all seem interwoven for me.
BTW, I chose to get a grad. degree in a medical field because I can be so empathetic to the suffering around me, that it seemed easier to encorporate that into part of my life’s work – because then it eased my heart and actually helped me.
Guess that’s also the point: don’t think I’ve ever helped anyone where I haven’t felt like I’ve gotten as much if not more back.
Still, I love creativity and writing. And I think you can give to others in many, many ways/shapes/forms. Writing a story that ultimately comforts, uplifts, or inspires self-acceptance in someone – is a great gift as well in my book. (PUN not intended, but sorta fun anyway.)
I like to think that individuals can give in all sorts of ways. (A woman at Petco gave me a lovely gift tonight when I was there buying special food my little kitty; who is having some struggles. Her warmth, connection, and conversation left me feeling strengthened.
I’m glad to know about all of the people you know who help others.
Still, concrete action IS helpful. I believe sharing encouragement and offering a smile and a shoulder (intention: love) is also helpful.
Just thoughts.
Nothin to debate on.
A question about debates though…
(truly) for me – writing in here is only a good use of my time when I feel like I’m sharing something positive. Otherwise, I start to feel like I’m sitting in a cave with a bunch of people discussing life – when the big ole real thang is right out the door. And I wanna be IN life.
So, the question is: for those who enjoy debating (as if there is a right and wrong answer) – what is the enjoyment in it? Are you really seeking to convince? To share? To educate? Or is it more of an enjoyable recreational experience (that maybe I just don’t relate to?)
Me, headin to sleeeeeeeeeeeee
p.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
You’re not raining on my parade. I was the skunk at the garden party on this conversation from the get go:)
“The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topcica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know they possess sufficient intelligence and self respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and to yield to it; and finally to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear to being proved in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarecely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
It’s funny about absurdities – in my experience – something only seems logically absurd – until you actually (and potentially accidentally) experience the reality of it concretely in your own life. Then, it seems to me, that you either have to stretch yourself open wide enough to encorporate the reality of the concrete, still not completely knowable – experiences – or you shut yourself down so that you can maintain reassuring sense of knowing everything there is to know, blah, blah, blah.
If you woke up tomorrow, and began having weekly, witnessed, psychic experiences – would the concept be absurd to you? Perhaps after you ran and had your mental health checked (delusional? scratch. psychotic? scratch. Diagnosis: reality intact.) would you debate about the existence of psychic experience? Or would you not waste your breath and look elsewhere….
must. go. night. night. now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 12:12 am
o no. i fibbed. lastly, i related to a lot of what Whoknows wrote.
And Hana Girl, HUG right back atcha.
NOW. TO. FALL. INTO. DREAMS……..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 1:49 am
SOOOO JohnQPublic:
The lesson you learned from your life experience is that mean SOBs or intellecutal bullies who do good works part time and in secret are more honest and better role models than anyone who talks about love and kindness publicly?
Action precludes talk? If you DO then you can not TALK about it? Why do you talk about science then?
Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Budah, Jesus, and millions of others who dedicated their lives to being like them must therefore be fakes because they TALKED about love and kindness publicly?
Do you really believe the world would be a better place if there were less people publicly talking about love and kindness and more people who were being jerks 9 months out of the year but did great works in secret the remaining 3 months?
I will tell you this, while you may never forget your hero’s 3 months out of the year of secret kindness, the world is full of those who will never forget the remaining 9 months out of the year of his public meanness. EVERYTHING we DO AND SAY counts, EVERY DAY.
I NOTICED YOU ASKED FOR KINDNESS FROM ME AND OTHERS, BUT YET YOU COULDNT WAIT TO PICK 3 WORDS OUT OF MY ORIGINAL POST TO TAKE YET ANOTHER JAB AT NEW AGERS WHEN MUCH OF IT APPLIED TO YOU!!
Where is your kindness and intellectual humility on this site? Where are your posts acknowledging that there is much you simply DONT know?
I read the posts JQP and it is clear that you are unaware that time and time again you come off as an intellectual snob and bully with much derrogatory and condecending to say (much like your SOB hero) and I can see that you derive a sense of power from it. I KNOW YOU HAVE A GOOD HEART, the question is:
Why do you ask for kindness from others when you have no hesitation withholding it yourself at the first opportunity?
Here is another question for you, how much time have you actually seriously spent in the personal lab of life rigorously giving meditation, prayer, yoga, acupuncture or any kind of religious or even new age practice an open minded and OBJECTIVE test to see if YOU find something you can not explain through convetional logic and scientific wisdom?
Being that you are a fan of scientific method which hinges on experimentation and you say you ventured out of your own “land” and it turned out to be “Disney Land”, I have another question for you: If Thomas Edison experimented with light the way you have experimented with spiritual “phenomena”, would he have discovered the light bulb?
If you say that you have honestly and seriously been experimenting with spiritual phenomena then you are missing something BIG in your experimental approach and you are just like the scientist who is better cut out to be a theorist rather than an experimental scientist.
Instead of taking the time it takes to READING 300 books a year, I spent years personally doing and experimenting with a variety of spiritual “phenomena” and I found that without a shred of doubt there IS such a thing as SPIRIT and there are plenty of actual life experiences that fall outside the limited domains of our physical brain and 5 senses. Conventional science is still in denyal about anything spiritual because not everyone has these experiences and mainstream science can not control/influence it at will and apply its conventional methods to it and measure it with any kind of electronic gadget yet to be invented. What science finds itself saying is that HUMAN EXPERIENCE outside the lab is not “PROOF” of HUMAN EXPERIENCE, for human experice to be TRUE, “we the scientists” must be able to apply our methods to it and separate the experience from the experiencer in order to accept it as scientifically valid!?!?!
Your true agenda and your unkind feelings towards new agers and religious people alike (well anyone spiritual) is well documented on this site. You may be unaware that being a SCIENTIFIC FUNDAMENTALIST makes you an unkind person to others who dont share your atheist views and your selective love and unquestioned belief for the “scientific”.
Fundamentalists of any kind are not people without love, but people with same amount of love as everyone else who choose to primarily RESERVE their love for a very limited subset of the population, people who are just like them.
More often than you realize, the “intellectually superior” mask you wear hides the kind and humble man behind it.
I know you will likely read this right now as a personal attack on you and if you do then you will miss the point once again.
I am not expecting anything from you JQP, I write this for others to read and to counteract some of the negative effects of the anti-spiritual propaganda you have been so passionately delivering here.
I also realize that I can not stop you from writing about your anti-spiritual beliefs as if they were FACTS anymore than you can stop Wayne Dyer or Deepak Chopra from doing so either no matter how hard you try.
So in the end, READER BEWARE.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 6:40 am
No, the lesson is this: the ones who talk about charity the most usually don’t deliver. I don’t think Jesus falls into that category.
I never asked for kindness from anyone here, I suggested civil discourse.
I don’t care about anyone’s kind heart. It’s what you do that matters.
My goodness you make some lofty claims. You probably need to replace your caps-lock key now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Very true words, månesteiner. “…only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know they possess sufficient intelligence and self respect not to advance absurdities.” Unfortunately, you can see from the WhoKnows (ex-Jodee, I believe) last post that absurdity is in the eye of the beholder.
Regarding “the parade,” I was only referring to your request for vote, not your comments in general. If anyone actually agrees to go forward with a vote, then I still am voting for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem. It is one of the issues Bacon cites for quantum computing, so I think is in-line with the website.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 7:05 am
By the way, nothing about this website supports spirituality. If you’re looking to resonate with others who agree, why here?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 7:14 am
GENUINE (my caps are stuck, what can I say) kind actions do not flow out of an unkind heart so we cant separate the two anymore than you can separate the left side of your body from the right.
You are quick to judge others but take issue when others judge you. Very interesting…
By the way I have been a New Ager, a Christian, and a scientist in my life and I dont consider myself just a “New ager” as you were quick to label me but actually the sum all three.
If each of these areas was a country, I can say I have actually lived in each one long enough to appreciate why people choose to make a home for themselves in either camp.
Its anyone’s choice to decide which camp they want to make their home, but to be bashing one camp because you choose not to live there is not a reflaction on the other camps, just a reflection of your own biases and preferences.
Each group has its own answers and holds a portion of the truth and each has its own shortcomings and anyone that pretends their camp is above others and without lack is at the very least being biased and not objective.
BYE FOR NOW
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 7:28 am
“Why do you talk about science then?” Because science delivers; it is action. Every time I turn on my microwave, every time I get on a jet, every time I type on my computer, every time I look through my catadioptric telescope, every time I talk on my cell, et cetera. To me, science is true magic and does not require belief to demonstrate itself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 7:32 am
I was not referring to you as a new ager, I was referring to havAgr8Day, JoeG and a few others. You in no way strike me as a new ager. They tend not to yell in their writing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Yes science works, but also “new age” works, and religion works that is why they are still around and will continue to be long after we are all gone, whether you like it or not.
THINK WHAT YOU WILL. Like I said I wouldnt expect any different.
HERE ARE SOME MORE UPPER CASE LETTERS SINCE YOU LIKED THEM SO MUCH, ONE LAST TIME!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 7:58 am
I don’t know about you, but I am not going to step one foot on a plane built on New Age idealism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 8:00 am
What has religion given us but a bunch followers killing each other over their interpretation of divine will? Even you said you walked away from it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 8:07 am
WhoKnows, since you’re a scientist you’re then well trained in calculus. Any comment on some of the research papers here?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 8:14 am
David Bacon: I saw the Kernighan Ritchie book pop up on your random book selection. Very nice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 8:30 am
havAGr8Day: Your list of charities is impressive. ( I mean that and is not to be taken as sarcasm.)
Part of the reason I put the example of the example of my friend’s work in Costa Rica seems to be lost here: living in horrid conditions of villagers, construction work for six days a week for three long months in malaria ridden territory cannot not be summarily dismissed. It is uncommon. That action speaks very loudly. You do not have to align intention with action to make truly big differences. All that is required is two hands.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Anything that requires belief as a premise to experience is indistinguishable from fraud.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 9:21 am
JQP
Once again when you dont like the direction of the conversation you revert back to your “intellectual superiority” pattern. Sorry, I am not going to give you the pleasure of a scientific debate and get off the subject.
Anything requiring Belief to be experienced is undistinguishable from FRAUD? Sports must be fraud then since all athletes must first believe they can accomplish a goal before they actually train for it! There are many fields in life where the first step to success is belief. Notice I said the first step of experience, not the ONLY step.
If you dont first believe you can acoomplish anything (yes in the absence of proof) then you will never even try.
Regarding the pitfalls of religion, yes this is true but lets not forget to thank science for nuclear bombs and all others weapons of mass destruction and other technology that threathen our very existence on Earth. Every field has its own flaws.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 9:56 am
You’re in a scientific website.
Science did not order the bombs, politicians did. Science definitely did not pick the cold war fight and many from that group opposed it. Additionally, the there is no bloodshed over if science is right or not.
I’m not claiming any intellectual superiority. I never said I was a scientist. I am claiming to be well-read and educated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 10:04 am
By the way, Whoknows, did you read the little joke I posted (far above)? I know its purpose was opaque, but it was a nod in direct agreement with you about the cultural bias toward women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 10:14 am
But if you’re claiming to be scientist, then by definition you are claiming formal training in scientific procedures. Otherwise the title would have no meaning because then just anyone could claim it. You cannot be a scientist because you had a good night’s sleep at an Express Holiday Inn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 10:32 am
But, actually, I am fascinated by the research here (Washington University). Quantum computers promise some pretty remarkable things. Right now I’m trying to determine if the HSP problem is a hurdle or a test of computational achievement such as the Turning test.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I took Calculus 26 years ago and didnt use it ever again in my field so I am rusty in this area. I have a bachellors degree in science and I am no longer active in the field. As I said, I have been a “scientist”, past tense and now only read about it so I wouldnt use the term in present tense. I am aware that there is much about current scientific knowledge that I am not up to date on and I am not qualified to speak of and this is fine with me and this is all I have to say on this topic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 11:22 am
JPQ
Regarding you comments about this being a website aimed at scientific discussions, you have my aplogies. I was thrown off by the sponsor links below:
“Dr. Wayner Dyer (try this free spiritual…)”
“Perkl-Light Energy Spa (Affordable bioenergenic…)”
“How to attract abundance”
and so forth…
When you read the opening comment being discussed at the top of this page, it appears this was a website discussing the topic of the validity of Dr. Wayne Dyer’s teachings instead of site aimed at discussing strictly scientific subjects.
If this is a website aimed at discussing life in general then it holds my interest, otherwise I just lost it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 11:28 am
This is the premise: “So here is the real question. Why doesn’t the word Hamiltonian achieve as high a standing as energy? Or at least the Lagrangian, for gosh sake! And why no talk of the action. I mean that’s my favorite quantity, the action! No eigenvectors, no eignenvalues, no renormalization group. If you’re going to talk to me, and convince me of your self-help mumbo jumbo, you’d better be talking my launguage!”
And this is our host: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/dabacon/index.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Science did not order the bombs but science sure did develop them nonethless and so it bears responsibility for its mistakes just as religion does. There are scientists who have just as much innocent blood in their hands as religious extremists do.
Science is a double edge sword just like religion, it can be used for good or for bad depending on the minds that drive them. Neither one is just good or just bad as you previously implied religion to be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 11:40 am
MY LAST POSTING (I have to use UPPER case again!)
I see people who have come and gone on this website (and I am about to join them) and yet JPQ you are still going strong.
JPQ, I am sincerely impressed that a family man like yourself who remains educated and I am sure works for a living and is also involved in charity work still finds enough time available in the day to keep posting comments on these websites apparently without end…
You have mastered time management and my hat goes off to you!
I know I couldnt keep this up so I am not going to try!
I GOT TO GO NOW…I WISH YOU WELL…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 11:48 am
ZerO, I’ve been wanting to get back to you regarding my guess of your age. You were correct on both counts: it was both the age of your daughter and your attitude that had me guessing your age as much younger. You remind me of one of my sons-in-law. At 22, he is completely unthreatened by new information/ideas or things he doesn’t know. He happily and eagerly investigates, learns, and if something is of value to him, makes it his own. I love that about him. It’s an admirable trait.
Would love to talk with you about home schooling, but this is probably not the best forum for that.
I’m not the least bit sensitive about my age. I’m 51 (just), the mother of 2 surviving children, both girls, and grandma to 5, soon to be 6.
I have not yet had an opportunity to look up the info on Tom Beardon. We’re still in peek season here on the farm and this past weekend all the kids and grandkids were here. It was awesome and a much needed break. Took my almost 5 year old grandson out on the pond and taught him how to row a boat. Big thrill for him – last time they were here, I taught him how to drive and work the track hoe and he always gets a tractor lesson from Grandpa Jerry. Who knows? Maybe he’ll decide he likes farming when he’s older, then he’ll have some skills to build on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 11:50 am
No, I’m semi-retired. I only work when I need to. I was pretty lucky in my career. So, I don’t have that much to do between consulting work. (Mostly my work is giving advice to computer companies.) My son is grown and has long been away. It’s a big empty nest. (That’s my granddaughter in the picture.) It’s just been the wife and me for a long time. She retired over 20 years ago when I started making some real strides in my career. So, like I said before, I’ve got too much time on hands, to be sure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
My parting remark on you last religion comment: What did religion bring to the world table? Where is its tangible benefits in my day-to-day life?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Okay, JQP, I’m totally cracking up that you think I have(had) a new alias by the name of WhoKNows. WhoKnows wrote a lot of things that I would probably say. We are, however, two separate entities. Too bad. Looks like you got tag-teamed. (Exactly what would be your definition of civil discourse be, BTW?)
As someone who has fled religion entirely, I find it just as prevalent in the scientific community. It’s seems to be the knee jerk response for people when they can’t explain something they observe. Darwinistic Evolution is a prime example: It is neither demonstrable nor observable, yet highly intelligent men in the field of science cling to it as though it were fact and attempt to explain what IS observable and demonstrable through the colored glasses of their religious belief that we crawled out of primordial ooze, and that our ancestors were apes.
I love the joke. I actually did get the implications of it. Your intention wasn’t the least bit obscure to me. But as the best math teacher I ever had used to say, “It isn’t obvious unless you see it.” Smart man.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Evolving lifeforms are not only observable but documented. Natural selection has evolved a number of species within documented history.
Oh, well, I guess the joke’s on me. I thought you two were the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
havAgr8Day, I have to wonder if you have the stomach for this discussion. And BTW, when it’s in writing, it’s libel, not slander, and both must be accompanied by an intent to do harm. In the absence of malice, someone’s negative opinion about someone else doesn’t qualify in either category just because it appears to be mean spirited. The one damaged by such speech would also have to demonstrate that damage. So, if what JQP has said about Dyer actually results in significantly lower sales of his books, attendance at his talks, etc, AND he could prove that JQP was directly responsible, then he would have to additionally prove that JQP INTENDED harm – that his intent was malicious. Even if he could prove even that, Dyer would have a hard time making his case since he defines intent as a force in the universe, and then “teaches” his students to “access it”. Since JQP, according to Dyer’s own teachings and supposed beliefs, has merely engaged the “source” to accomplish that which he set out to do, JQP’s defense would be that he was merely a more successful Dyer student than others. Hmmm. Don’t you just love a good conundrum?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
One last thing for it slips my mind, Jodee. WhoKnows said, “…you asked me for kindness..”. The only time I did anything remotely like that was when I chimed in and asked Jodee for civility. So, that is what threw me. Now I don’t have any idea what they were referring to because I never addressed them.
What civility? Not yelling; not calling people ignorant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
There are no documented cases of metamorphic transformations from one species to another. The only documentable evolutionary changes are those which occure within a species, eg. average human height changes, length of toes, etc. Otherwise, the “links” are still missing. Strange, since the earth should be littered with them. We dug another 6 feet deeper in our wetland project and still didn’t find any, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Well, the hakkai crab comes to mind. But, yes, those that occur within a specie. Correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
JQP said: “Regarding “the parade,” I was only referring to your request for vote, not your comments in general.”
Actually, that was ZerO’s request for a vote. I was responding to his suggestion of adding a new topic to debate.
“No, I’m semi-retired. I only work when I need to.” A Shangri-La I can only dream of. Cheers!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Ignorance is curable and nothing to be ashamed of, unless one chooses to remain that way. It is certainly not the same as stupidity, which is incurable, as it is a genetic intellectual deficiency. I believe what people generally refer to by both of these terms is really foolishness, which is sometimes curable and sometimes not, since a great deal of it depends on a person’s willingness to be wise, ie. to use the best way possible, (for the best outcome,) the knowledge to which one has been exposed. Wisdom comes with experience, but experience doesn’t always breed wisdom. Some people never learn from their experiences, and more’s the pity.
A sharp wit is also not the same as yelling. I’m not sure how one would determine yelling in a written forum, although I suppose “all caps” might come close.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Thanks, månesteiner. My apologies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
JQP: I am a psychologist (science?) and art therapist.
I feed about 50 animals twice a day (charity?).
Am I still welcome here?
P.S. Who would you debate with if everyone was a scientist?
P.S.2 Why Wayne Dyer (or Deepak Chopra for that matter). Why not someone/thing more “scientific”. Just think of the energy (” “) you’ve invested in that guy, or in his ideas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Yes, most emotionally based outbursts (e.g. shouting) are syntactically expressed by caps and overuse of punctuation, normally. But, again, I was chiming in for someone else. It doesn’t bother me, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
P.S.3 I vote for your grandaughter.
Good Night.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Gee, hanna, I didn’t mean to say anyone was unwelcome at all. I was specifically questioning the comment that I fell back on science when “I didn’t like the direction of the conversation.” I was merely pointing out that this was a science based forum to begin with and that that shouldn’t surprise anyone. I didn’t mean for anyone to leave, but someone did say they believed they wandered into the wrong place.
Regarding the “energy I’ve invested in that guy,” it’s funny but this actually a Dyer point. I saw something really good in what everyone thought was bad. And, moreover, makes a somewhat compelling philosophical point about purity of intention as it related to purity of action. I really haven’t said how much I invested in him anyway. But I do call him a friend. He’s interesting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Well, thank you, hana.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
The reason I can respond so frequently here is I have (for any computer enthusiasts) three Linux boxes (Ubuntu, Suse, and Fedora), and three Windows laptops in my office. So, with the multiple desktops provided by Linux (Linux gives you, typically, 4 desktop spaces per machine), I have a window up permanently on a number of discussion forums. And through the magic of a little wget code, it automatically scans the sites and notifies me when something new appears.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Hana:
“I feed about 50 animals twice a day (charity?).”
I think that’s awesome. I take in stray dogs as my only pets. (Well, I do have a conure.)
“Who would you debate with if everyone was a scientist?”
Science is debate by definition. That is what they do. It is never good enough to simply state something, because it will be beat to shreds by others. I know this not from being a scientist (as I said, I’m not), but from working with them what I was on contract with AT&T Bell Labs. There were a number of theoretical physicists that were on my image processing project. So, there’s never a lack of debate within its realm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Jodee,
hello
. No, I don’t really have the stomach or the patience for this conversation – very often.
I don’t do a lot of parsing words on this site – cuz when i post, i try to do so quickly (or i regret the time i have spent).
In terms of my slander comment – the casual definition is simply – to circulate false, discrediting/defamitory rumors – and such rumors CAN have a very negative effect on a person – when the rumors are spread using the internet. (Trust me on this one thing: I have a friend who has written a highly used university text book on public relations and the media – and he would highly concur that people can read a bit of something on the internet – especially if they are from out of the country – and, without the desire to do some extensive time consuming research – have that piece of information effect them.)
Point: What I was referring to regarding JQ’s distressing posts were very specific comments that regarded Dyer, and his publisher/previous publisher/and their relationships. Having been immersed in the book making world for quite a few years – I have never heard/read what JQ asserted in those posts. They were factual statements, phrased in (for me) a derogatory way (I’m not going to repeat them here) – that, as far as the facts that I know of (through people who work in different publishing houses) were false. Period.
Those were the posts I was referring to – and they came very near to when I jumped out of here.
Also, the funny thing is: what also happened at that time was that JQ made some comments about the writing process (creative) – that made absolutely no sense to me. I won’t go any further, because I don’t have a desire to embarrass JQ – that isn’t my point. But for me, when he made those comments (again, stated so factually) – it concerned me even more – because I thought “Woah, what if there’s a whole lot of what he is stating that is that far off?” JQ, you refer to facts etc, but when you’ve talked (Otay, Jodee
WRITTEN) about writing – (and not the clinical/professional journal sort – but the creative sort) – I generally feel that the words you use reflect a real lack of knowledge in the area. However, it doesn’t bother me – because I don’t think you need to feel the pressure to be the expert of all things all the time. And like I said, for me, running a long a hamster wheel (in terms of debating ALL things while sitting at a computer screen) is not productive.
So Jodee, I live in a beautiful area – about a mile from the Santa Monica mountains, and about fifteen miles from the Pacific ocean. I have two professions: consulting in the health field, and writing. And I have a lot of people whom I love in my life. So many amazing things to do and learn. There’s a center about ten miles up the road where I can go listen to a Nobel Peace Prize winner speak quite frequently (part of their speaker series) – and I try to take advantage of all that life offers me at this point. So spending lots of time in here addressing random debates – doesn’t make sense for me.
And about debating – so funny
– I only scanned the debate y’all were having ’bout allopathic medicine etc. – and, (BLAH BLAH BLAH) as someone who has a grad degree in a medical field – I felt no need to jump in. I’m not a system defender. Most of the people I know who work within the more traditional western medical profession are not either (that includes some surgeons). But like Bacon here, my training in that field requires lots of consistency and generalization of practice – which has it’s own sets of limitations. My point is – I’d never deprive myself of seeking or utilizing other forms of health care. (The field I work in is PM&R – physical medicine and rehabilitation). Anyway, my point is – although I work in that field – I was very glad to move into consulting – because that allowed me to use the parts of my training that I felt allowed me to offer the most to others – and to not emphasize the areas that I didn’t find to be authentically helpful (after a decade of shared clinical experiences). Again, sowwy, cuz i jump around – can’t stand spending too much time here. But the point is – I would want all the choices available to me. And I haven’t studied your field – so I don’t really know very much about it. But I certainly wouldn’t discount it. Thus, I just felt no need to debate anything. Point ad nauseum: 
I see a lot of strengths and weaknesses in any system. I love to cull the strengths, and minimize the weakness as much as possible.
Anyway, I actually popped up in here after googlin’ ’round a bit trying to see if I could find something that would help me to help others for whom I consult. They represent a diverse group religiously – and people of different religions are often in close proximity – and to serve them the best that I can, means to help them with their own discomfort – or ??? – confusion over how to share close physical spaces with others (while trying to heal) who have such different views. Thus – and this is funny – I randomly thought of Dyer’s Inspiration talk – and on his guests – and googled him thinking that something might click somewhere that would be helpful.
And I ended up here
Well, yes, it has been helpful for me internally in gaining some of what I was looking for.
Also – when I popped up here – and saw Bacon’s post – I never thought I’d stay around. Regardless of what he said/no!!!! oh no!!! I mean WROTE
I felt a fondness for him – and for others of his ilk 
. As I said waaaayyyyy up in the posts, I have a beloved brother-in-law who is a very creative, excellent scientist (Ivy league phd if that impresses anyone 
– and he initially sat pretty firmly in Bacon’s camp. However, he and I actually never debated. (Probably cuz he wanted to marry my sis and knew how much we love each other 
– however, even though we never debated, we would have lots of normal talks like families do – and within about six months, he had one foot firmly stepping out into unknown territory. Now, I think he lives everywhere. I love his passion for science and experimentation – discovery. I find it extremely creative and very similar to my creative writing process (the straight jacket for me in the writing process comes in the last stages – copy proofing, some editing, etc.etc.). But sometimes the things he says – (and he’d never consider himself new age – just someone who speaks his thoughts honestly as he has them) – make me go “wow, that was an amazing view on that.”
Anyway, during most of this post, I have felt like I’ve been wasting too much time – cuz my heart and mind really need to be elsewhere – thus the guilt that I may be even wasting other’s time right now. All these words.
And so, until I feel like something more compelling urges me to pop up in here (it probably will) I’ll probably pop out for a bit.
This post has felt really DRY and dull – and at the very least, i hope to be slightly entertaining.
I will say one last thing though – it is funny that JQ calls me new age. I’ve said repeatedly that my experiences with being psychic are almost always linked to my creative life. The fact that I’ve dreamt manuscripts in my sleep – does that make me New Age? Or does the fact that I’ve dreamt about a manuscript in my sleep (after praying for help with an introduction the night before) make me new age?
I don’t label myself. I just deal with myself
.
That’s usually enough for me.
But truthfully, I grew up in a Catholic household, believe in Christ – and have no desire to discount anyone else’s religion or beliefs.
I do hold LOVE up as the greatest goal.
And for me – intention – does matter. Because if I’m doing something for someone because I want something from them – YUCKO!!! If I’m doing something for someone because loving energy is flowing through me – Bingo. And even with goals, I’m pretty sure that Bacon wouldn’t be doing the work he’s doing if he hadn’t somewhere, somehow set the intention (probably after he found he loved that area). Hmmm. Remembering Dyer’s talk on INSPRIRATION … just remembering him saying that (loosely repeated) living an inspired life requires living in spirit. I sort of take it that Bacon loves what he does, follows that love – and is thus living in spirit (oh Bacon, let that spirit keep growing…….).
And maybe that is what “Spiritual Energy is the Energy of Abundance,” means… when you do something that you love (I’ll connect that to your heart here) – you are in spirit – and I think Bacon’s creating some abundance around him.
Go Bacon!!!
For me that statement rings true in that way for me. I originally had two author/writing mentors (very lucky me!!) – and both always said “You are so prolific.” I love creative writing – it sort of owns me really – and when I open myself to it -
the stories come like waterfalls. Awake, asleep… absolute abundance.
Anyway, also know that many mystics, many saints, many lovely humans – have talked about things like the soul, the spirit, loving ENERGY, the energies that flow through our body – way before anybody ever talked about new age.
So, however you want to define me, otay.
But for me, I’m just lil ole curious me.
Tryin to live up to the life i’ve been given by living it – loving it – and keepin my eyes, heart, and mind wide open to it.
Quaaa (or for Hana, however a Frog would say “ciao for now.”)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
It took me so long to post that last forever post that i missed some cute ones (Hana – your’s, JQ, you calling Dyer a friend – Ummmm, WOWWWWWW. Happy!!!!)
bu-bye now
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
JQP:
Before I left for good I couldnt help to take one last look in and I am glad since I see there is something I WANT to explain.
I didnt mean “ignorant” as an insult, if you look at my first posting you will see I am first to admit that I AM ignorant about MOST areas of knowledge (which is an infinite field) myself. As Jodee pointed out (yes we are NOT one and the same!) I did not mean the word as “stupid” either.
From dictionary.com
ig·no·rance
–noun the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
JQP (continued…)
With everything he knew about Physics, even Einstein was ignorant about most other sciences.
The scope and breath of all possible knowledge is so vast that EVERY human on this Earth is actually more ignorant than knowledgeable as a whole. Taking offense to this is denying what is so.
If you have NOT had ANY spiritual experiences at all (which misleads you to the conclusion that there is no such thing as Spirit) then this is an area you are simply ignorant of and there is just no way to sugar coat it any more than I can sugar coat that I am ignorant about the French language, immunobiology, and the list goes on and on.
Regarding my overuse of UPPER CASE, this is just MY style to emphasize words as I would in speach. If I could use Itelics on this website instead then I would, but the end result would be the same and was not coming from an attempt to scream through the computer!! IF I SOUNDED ANGRY, I WAS NOT!!! AS I WRITE THIS I AM ACTUALLY LAUGHING!!
See you cant always tell whats in a book by its cover!
AGAIN, I WISH YOU WELL JQP AND WHILE I DISAGREE WITH MANY OF YOUR CONCLUSIONS AND BELIEFS ON THE SUBJECTS OF SPIRITUALITY AND THE VALUE/NATURE OF RELIGION (which needs to be weighed not only in terms of whether is useful to JQP or to WhoKnows since we are not the only inhabitants in the planet), I DID NOT MEAN TO DISRESPECT.
Jodee, I wanted to say in parting I hope to have a friend who thinks like you one day! If I didnt have to get on with life right now I could have many interesting conversations with someone like yourself but time just keeps ticking away!
BYE NOW Y’ALL
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Said with the utmost affection:
“JQ, Get Out Of That Office. Get Out of That Office…” (Said with the accent from the movie I never saw – where some crankcaller was scaring a babysitter? No? But do ya know what i mean???)
I mean, just rip off your clothes and run around the woods nakid for a bit.
Anything. Ya got to get out of that office!!!!
And so many kids waiting for you to help them even more (and lovely stray dogs)…
“Get Out Of The….”
XOX!!!
(Playful!!!!!!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Thanks for the number of sentiments. But, havAgr8Day, I travel an awful lot, so I do get out. (Thanks for the tip, I don’t think my neighbors would appreciate my ugly butt jiggling down the road–no woods here.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Ah! No, sorry, I didn’t call Dyer a friend. I was referring that VP guy I mentioned.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
WhoKnows, no disrespect taken. (But I still turn off my speakers when I read your entries, just in case.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Nope, never had a spiritual experience. Only a certain select group ever tells me they have. Not sure that anything would have turned any better had I had one. And, oddly, (please don’t take this the wrong way as it is a broad generalization) most of those I’ve met who claim one don’t really seem all that happy in their lives. I’ve had employees who’ve claimed this, yet almost all of them actually lead unhappy lives. (Bosses can become a shoulder to cry on and you sometimes learn way more than you want to know about people.) Now, I’m not going to extrapolate that and paint you with that brush, but I will point out there are a number of things I come across that say I’m not the only one that sees that.
Regarding Dr. Bacon, his work being in-spirit. (scroll to “Quantum Peace” about 1/2 down. I like his sarcasm.)
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
havAgr8Day, you were, at the very least, entertaining. Are you ADHD by any chance? You write just like some of my special ed kids did. I don’t mean that as an insult, either. We all have our limitations, despite what Dyer says. I just found my ADHD kids to be the most fun of any of the bunch I worked with – wonderfully wild imaginations. It was, however, my job to teach them how to be wordsmiths, thus my specific differentiation between libel and slander. Words mean things and when they are used in a sloppy way or carelessly, misunderstandings are bound to occur. I’m just glad I’m not your copy editor! Yikes!
“And maybe that is what ‘Spiritual Energy is the Energy of Abundance,’ means… when you do something that you love (I’ll connect that to your heart here) – you are in spirit…”
You have illustrated what some of us on this site find so objectionable: vague gelatinous statements open to individual interpretation that inevitably end in contradiction and circular logic, none of which can be quantified, (and therefore challenged on the basis of truth or lie,) all of which are part of an overall plan to make Dr. Dyer a wealthy man. This is the true mark of every TV evangelist out there. (I’m going out on a limb here. I haven’t actually watched ALL of them, but the 6 or 7 I’ve tuned into over the years certainly fit the bill.) And that’s how Dyer strikes me.
Having grown up in the Catholic church, I can see how you would think that things you think of in your dreams are some sort of psychic experience. That’s what religion does: interprets experience and observation with superstition and circular logic. That’s why Christ was invented – to fill the need to have an embodiment of mystery from which all other mysteries proceed.
But how about this explanation: Your brain is a supercomputer that works even when you’re sleeping. During those deeper brain wave periods of the dream state, it considers stored data and sorts it. (Literally, everything you’ve ever heard, read, seen, experienced, or even thought about is stored there. So, technically, you can’t really forget, you just can’t recall – can’t find the file, so to speak.) Sometimes your brain sorts the stored information into a nightmare, which reflects fear-based data. Sometimes it actually works out a problem or puts together a manuscript. This kind of activity has been measured (oh, please let’s don’t get into the whole “measure it/disturb it debate again…!) So, if you want to call that being in the spirit, go ahead, but really it’s just a natural process we don’t fully understand.
And BTW, I have my doubts about Dyer’s personal life as well. I note that he is basically surrounded by women (gullible?), having divorced two of them. As someone who’s been down that road before, these look like red flags to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
There is too much static in this forum right now.
JQP, it seams to me that you constantly want to be in the center of attention. I think you intentionally irritate people or start arguments in order to be the focus of everyones attention. Your ego is blurring your vision.
I tried to bring the discussion to a concrete subject that everyone could have an input on but you keep on wanting to look “superior” by wanting to discuss a subject that you don’t even know is all about.
I could propose a subject that would be so far above your head that you wouldn’t even see it with your “scientific” telescope. This is not the point. If you think that you are such an educated and well read person then steer the discussion away from you and towards a specific subject, so we can discuss the subject rather than each other.
I want to get SOME benefit from the time I spent here. Lately my time has been wasted just listening to the static (no disrespect to anyone).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
The slander charge: It is unlikely I will hurt any book sales for Dyer. It is more likely that someone will buy just to see what I’m talking about. (So, he should probably send me a small fee.) Additionally, it is not going to account to any defamation. Have you looked at the blogging world? have you spent a day on youtube? Just look at what happened to that poor kid who did “Chocolate Rain.” But, all that “slander” (and he has 7 million plus posts–a record–almost all making fun of him) got him was a spot on the Jimmy Kimmel show. I don’t he’s suing anyone. In fact, on the show he said he was “flattered” by some of the ridicule.
Finally, Dyer says in his latest book, “Open yourself to those who criticize you and listen.” So, it doesn’t sound like he’ll take any umbrage.
Remember, don’t sweat the small stuff. And this here is very small stuff.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Zer0, I tried. I’m the only one who voted. I will follow your lead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Jodee, I just went through your posts. I’m going to hold off as Zer0 wants to change direction and I really do support him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Jodee, thanks for sharing your personal info. Now I have a clearer image of you in my mind.
IF you have a chance check this out
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4242030440208468502
JQP, for a lack of another subject why don’t you also check out this video and then we can discuss it. I haven’t watched it completely myself, I just found this site.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Oh no Jodee – please don’t just be the flip side of the JQ coin (on a bad day, not a good day).
ADHD? Serious question? Never. Have I worked with children and adults with it? Yes.
But I do allow myself to be very loose in here.
So many conclusions that you jumped to so quickly…
I said I grew up in a Catholic household – not that I grew up in the Catholic Church. I went to public schools, and never confirmed the Catholic faith as my faith.
Anyway, I think y’all should go with Zero’s idea.
Maybe I’ll just pop up now and then and share some interesting examples of synchronicity, or psychic experience. (Btw, when I refer to psychic experience, I’m referring to psychic experience, not dreaming about manuscripts.)
And the nice thing about my experience with them -
is that they very often occur with other individuals around (or involve them), so it’s never an only me having to make an interpretation about them. It’s generally pretty concrete.
And about what you wrote about dreams… Yep. Ditto.
Jodee, one thing that amazes me – it’s almost incomprehensible to me that an individual would literally state: “That’s why Christ was invented.”
This YOU know for a fact.
Hmmmm.
I’ve never known any human being to make that statement; regardless of value statement.
Hope, for your sake that you’re right. Otherwise, what might you be missing?
Gotta go – I have two clients to see, and a 9/11 Peace Fundraiser to attend this evening (and some cleanin’ and showerin’ to do.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
I love my nephew. Anyone want to quantify it?
Am in the midst of falling in love – wanna quantify that?
Just spoke with a fantastic artist beginning what appears to be a really interesting journey into his calling/profession. Hmmm, anyone want to quantify his passion for that?
Lots of people all around tonight – artists, writers, teachers (teachers who are uniting and forming a global peace exchange network, etc) – what’s the slice and diced value of that – anyone?
Lots of people, making lots of lovely contributions to the world. (Hmmm, didn’t notice a name-caller among the bunch. What’s the odds of that, anyone? Hundreds, and not one name caller I spoke with….)
People DOING STUFF – stuff that started in their imaginations and hearts – and, with a little elbow grease, becoming real, actual positive forces in the world.
I can’t, and don’t want to change a single one of you.
Ya wanna sit here, and debate with strangers?
I wish you the best.
Ya wanna name call, declare yourself expert of it all? Ya wanna think you know the answers to it all?
I’m just goin’ to headin’ off to continue doin’ some of it all – in the real world. With real people. Face to face. With tolerance, intelligence, and courtesy.
Can’t change anyone. Don’t want to (especially some of the bright lights in here).
But I will say one last thing – “That’s why Christ was invented.” Gosh, I think you need to take that information out into the real world in a real way – because there are a lot of jews (who believe he was a false profit), christians (who believe he was beyond a profit), and sunni and shiite muslims (as well as b’hai) who view him as a profit. And all of these faiths, their historians/records, have all been duped by a pretend individual who never existed. That’s pretty darn big new Jodee. Even atheist scholars and academics have researched the records and of Christ’s existence. If you now who made him up -
I’d call a press conference. I bet you’d get way more people in attendance that the lovely ones I met tonight honoring peace, tolerance, and bridge building.
Yes, that was sarcasm – and when I stupe to it, it’s a good sign that I am no longer being tolerant or helpful. A sure sign for me to…
what do I keep saying? Pop out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
And JQ, just start doin some squats. Leg presses. Soon that jiggly butt will be in tip top shape – ready to take on the woods (perhaps a short drive away? Buck nakid).
Life – live it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 1:30 am
It seems Jesus’ real life is the new topic (joke).Don’t know much about it, but would gladly take y’all on a tour to the sites (and good restaurants around them), if you came here. Now, Happy New Year everyone and Dr. Bacon (thanks for your INTERESTING blog, real pluralism of ideas and lively discussion). I’m off to make my assigned contribution — fruit salad (peach, almonds, apple, figs… left out anything? oh, yes , the orange juice). bye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Christ was invented, huh?
This statement actually doesn’t surprise me, coming from someone who thinks Jesus should pay her parking tickets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 2:46 am
hello again…if Jodee really did read the Bible, she must have skipped the part where God gave humans authority on earth to make laws that should be reasonable to follow…like don’t park in handicapped spots, fire zones, etc.(I don’t know where she parked, that’s what the “etc.” is for)…these are modern day applications, of course…and also the part about give to God what is God’s and to govt. what is the govt’s(taxes and such)…I really hope that as smart as you appear to be, you didn’t lose your faith over a parking ticket…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 6:58 am
I made a comment earlier to Jodee about her gender being irrelevant as far as the debate is concerned. After reviewing the recent posts, however, I think I have detected a difference between the males and the females after all…about 17 paragraphs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Gary – touche’ LOL
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 9:41 am
havAgr8Day – first of all, the ADHD question was serious. Your writing is all over the place and difficult to follow, so I was attempting to understand why. That’s not the same as “jumping to…conclusions.” You seem to be offended by the notion that you appeared that way. Do you have a problem with it? You worked with people like that, but god forbid you should be one? Hmmm. Where’s the love?
And there is little difference between a Catholic household and a Catholic church – only a matter of degrees. I should know as my background is very similar to yours.
And yes, Christ is an invention. By his original name, Chrestos, a Greek sun god deity. If by Christ, you mean Jesus, you still have a problem. If you investigate and attempt to find ANY historic extra-biblical evidence that Jesus ever existed, what you will find is NOTHING. Literally none of the contemporary historians of his supposed time even mention him. Two refer to “Christ”, but that is interchangeable with Chrestos. The Josephus reference has two problems. Number one, he’s not a contemporary and number two his relatively paltry entry has proven to be a later addition by someone else, (the Catholic Church, perhaps?) and therefore a forgery. The authorship of the New Testament Gospels is unsubstantiated, as no one really knows who Mark is and the other three are based on his first writing. (Mark and John are not even Hebrew names, so very doubtful these guys were Galilean as the writings seem to indicate. Also no letter J existed before the 15th Century, so no James, John or Jesus for that matter.)
Then there’s the ancient Egyptian Sun God, Horus, whose life is a near exact duplicate of that of Jesus, complete with immaculate conception, crucifixion, and miraculous raising from the dead after three days, although Christians, as I stated before, have a serious math problem here, since Friday evening to very early Sunday morning is not 3 days. Horus predated Jesus by thousands of years, so now you have another problem. There were “Followers of the Way”, later known as Christians, that predate Jesus by 150 years. So, there’s another problem. Which Christ were they following? I’ve listed only 3 Christs, (and there are many more,) all of whose followers’ party lines claim him to be the only Christ. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. THAT is the real world. I don’t need to call a press conference, the rest of the “real world” already knows this and has widely televised it, including a large number of Jews and most atheists. So to which atheists and scholars are you referring? I spent 6 months diligently searching and couldn’t find a one, so if you have information I was unable to unearth, I’d love to see it.
Actually, if an atheist would step forward and present the historic facts of the existence of a miracle-working god-man who died and rose again, THAT would be worthy of a news conference, as it would be a first. In fact, that would be worthy of Nobel Prize. A bona-fide challenge has gone out into the real world that pays real money to the first person who can prove the existence of the historic figure who is now known as Jesus. I don’t know what real world you operate in, but it’s sure not the one that most of the rest of us are living in.
What you don’t seem to understand is that the Roman Catholic Church has formed and/or influenced all western thought, starting at least with Constantine, who by definition is the first Pope. He claimed himself to be the intercessor between man and god, to have the authority to interpret god’s will, and accepted, even demanded worship as a son of god. (Kissing the Pope’s ring qualifies as a worshipful act, BTW.) The purpose of the Catholic Church and all it’s daughters is one: to contain and control the masses, mostly through fear. That is consistence throughout Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam.
You’re missing the point about quantifiability. I assume you don’t charge a fee for the love you extend to others. Dyer, on the other hand, makes claims, one of which is that he is a prophet, and charges a fee to hear or read his claims. Therefore, any savvy consumer has the right to question and challenge the validity of those claims before being parted from his/her hard-earned money. And the only way I know of to substantiate a bona-fide claim is to quantify it in some way, especially since he’s selling it as a commodity. When it’s just left up to individual interpretation, then there’s no foundational value. We can go to the Toa ourselves (probably check it out of a library for free) and get out of it what ever we want. We don’t need Dyer interpreting it for us if it’s all a matter of whatever you see in it, anyway.
Frankly, his recount of a couple of illustrative stories from his enlightened past I have serious problems with, as someone who has had vast experience with kids of all ages. He simply doesn’t understand how kids think. He recounts a story about his 3 year old daughter coming home from school, (and why in the world is a three year old in school, when she has such a “wise” father?!) with a star on her paper. He asks her what it’s for and she tells him it means she got all the answers right. (They were doing addition.) He then tells her that he’s not impressed with the star – it doesn’t matter to him and she doesn’t need it. He’s just glad she can do the work. So the next time she brings a paper home, it has the star peeled off. He asks her why and she tells him she gave it back to the teacher and told her she didn’t need it and to give it to some other kid who needs it. All this to illustrate his “My reputation defines me” point . This is a bunch of bull. If a vicious serial murderer gets the reputation for being an evil person, that’s because he’s earned it and it most certainly defines him. What Dyer doesn’t seem to know about a three year old, especially a girl, is that Daddy is God. He only succeeded in switching her need for approval from the teacher to himself. Her daddy said she didn’t need it and so that’s what she told her teacher. He defined her as someone who didn’t need the star, never considering the possibility that she might have liked it, or that he put her in an environment where fitting in is so important and then doesn’t want her to fit in. Talk about messing with a kid. It’s human nature to care what those we love think of us. Strangers, sure – you shouldn’t care about that to the point of wanting to please everyone to make yourself feel good. But, concern about your reputation is certainly valid in many applications in the real world. Dr. Dyer himself is a perfect illustration of that. He needs you to believe that he is the prophet he claims to be and I’ll wager derives a great deal of his self-esteem, not to mention profit, from that lofty position. He is what he does. oops! another no-no in his book.
His other story has to do with an occasion on which he was “watching” three kids for a friend of his (another woman) ages 4-7, near a swimming pool. He was working on his laptop while doing this, fully convinced that they were safe under his care, so right away I have a problem with this whole scenario. Children around a pool require your undivided attention, especially at those ages. The children begin “tattling” to him about various mistreatments at the hands of the other two and he simply tells them he’s not interested (again not interested) in their squabbles and they’ll just have to work it out. And surprise – they did. Again – bull! Kids want adults to interact with them and set limits. They feel insecure without them. This is why kids are supposed to have parents. The tattling kids were basically demanding his attention, interaction, and establishment of limits. But, instead of acknowledging this need, which he could have done without refereeing if he had any parental sense at all, he sent them off to figure it out on their own. No doubt, they simply resigned themselves to the fact that he wasn’t interested in them or what they were doing and they were on their own. This technique has some valid applications, but not at these ages and most certainly NOT next to a swimming pool. Has he never read Lord of the Flies? or heard of gangs? This is how kids “work it out on their own” when adults consistently aren’t involved in their lives.
What I see from these two stories is a man who is self-involved, with an over-inflated view of his own value as a contributing member of society, measured perhaps by his income. oops! another no-no from his book.
Good luck in that real world you live in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 10:08 am
I see the Christians are coming back to the discussion. Well, folks, trust me. I’m your worst nightmare: an ex-christian who actually knows her bible – spent over 40 year studying it and believing it and most of the history that goes with it.
You have all resorted to the typical Christian response over the hypothetical traffic ticket. So, what did Jesus (or whatever his name is supposed to be – no j’s before the 15th century, remember?) die for anyway? Oh yeah, I remember – so we don’t have to go to hell for our sins, like speeding. Would that be the same hell that was invented by Dante’? So, I’m supposed to believe in someone who didn’t exist to save me from a place that doesn’t exist. Well, I guess that makes sense……..not.
And, by the way… do you observe all the Levitical feasts? Oh yeah, probably not, since Jesus fulfilled all those laws, so we don’t have to keep them, thereby abolishing them. So, that’s why I still have to pay my traffic ticket! Jesus didn’t obey all of our millions of laws, so the ones He missed, I still have to pay for. But I thought He paid for ALL my sins.
Look, people, if I’m questioning the validity and authority of the Bible, which in case you missed it, I am, then don’t try to prove your point out of the very resource I question – the canon of which was dictated and manipulated by the Catholic Church, a purely political entity.
Once again, my point is made about esoteric writings – everyone feels free to make up their own interpretations and ignore what they don’t like. Frog, if you’re referring to the “whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained” reference, you’ve got a problem then with “judge not, that ye be not judged”, don’t you? Or are you referring to Romans 13, written by a Gnostic and then manipulated by the RC? Interestingly enough, a large number of clergy have been directly instructed by our government to preach this very chapter of submission to the government that “God has put over us.” Gee, that doesn’t sound like a contain and control tactic at all…..And why can the government tell churches what to preach? It’s call the 501.C.3. You Christians are yoked with mammon. But isn’t that an unequal yoke, since our government is largely pagan? Oh, but wait. Maybe not, since Christianity comes straight out of paganism, too. You people really need to do some brushing up on your church history.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Oh, and did Jesus abolish the 10 Commandments, too? He kept those perfectly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Jodee,
I see you as being your own worst enemy.
Our backgrounds are nothing alike.
I grew up among people of very diverse faiths.
My parents introduced their children to Caholicism, and then let us make our own decisions as to whether we wanted to confirm it as our faith or to follow it – at a very young age. Independent thought in our household was always encouraged.
I have never felt the need to belong to a faith, nor to reject one.
However, your references regarding Jesus Christ being made-up do little to address anything I wrote. Truly, if you have the evidence to prove that the historical Jesus Christ (an individual) never existed – why not go out and get that big book contract with an international publisher and enlighten the world. (And make sure that contract is for a NON-FICTION book; not a fiction book.)
I’ve never been a person who spent decades of my life doing anything I’ve later completely rejected. Forty years of your life doing something you now deem as complete false-hood?
How did something like that happen?
(Geez, truthfully, that has had to have required quite a mental adjustment – as well as a thorough self assessment to understand why you did what you did to yourself for forty years?)
In terms of my writing being all over the place – yes, it often is in here. As I said from the beginning, I don’t even allow myself to check for typos – I skim read the posts, and then rush through my own. If I was ADHD, I’d state so. And I wasn’t offended over that – rather, I found it ???? when you wrote you’d hate to be my editor, “Yikes.” I mean, it was funny – but again, I don’t send editors rushed blog entries; I send them polished manuscripts. Also, when you mentioned yourself being a wordsmith (well, I won’t make any more comments on that).
If my writing is hard to follow at times – my apologies. You might want to make the effort however – because I think there’s some good stuff in it.
Now, come on Zero – I think your plan was a good one. For the people who want to stay reading this site – it would be a whole lot more interesting than this. YUCK.
As I said in a post waaaaayyyy up there – some people live in a mud puddle for years, when the whole wide world is right out the door. Too general of a statement for you Jodee? Think of it as a metaphor…
For me, if I keep regularly posting – that’s what I’ll be doing to myself. I need to open that door.
If I feel I have anything more – that is positive to add – I’ll pop back in.
If I do – I’ll only do so to relay a hopefully funny, interesting, and at least somewhat positive experience or thought.
Wish I lived near Hana, that salad sounded wonderful. Off to the beach for me……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
And Jodee,
I didn’t fully read your last post – I was a little too eager to get out of here.
But your thoughts on children (I can’t confirm or deny anything you wrote about Dyer because I haven’t read it) were touching. I saw a lot of caring heart there.
Good, I have a nice last (rear-view?)
image of this whole thing.
Really, good luck to all of us on this journey.
And good luck to me – who keeps posting – cuz I’m the only one who can give myself permission to stop.
PERMISSION GRANTED.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Jodee, I never judged you…in fact, I made a reference to how smart you are…I don’t judge people as that’s not my job, but I think I am allowed to judge their statements objectively…because that’s not a personal issue…I think if you misunderstood a simple paragraph written by me, it is certainly possible that you may have misunderstood a good portion a thick book like the Bible…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
To HavAgr8Day
Bravo! Good for you!
You’ll be glad you stepped away. It is time to get “out there” and return your focus back on living your truth and away from debating it!
I was curious about what was being posted here since I left and with very few exceptions (not worth coming back for except to encourage you) I am sure glad I stepped away too.
Everyone is equally entitled to their beliefs (even when they appear to be “wrong”) and the stronger we each feel about our “Truth”, the more evidence we each can come up with to back it up and you can see that many passionate writers on this site with lots of available time could carry this on for years and you will never change their minds. There is great freedom in being OK with that!
While some of the writings here may give you reason for concern, most people can see them for what they are and will go on believing what they rather believe anyway.
You can definetely feel the “energy” to use one of our favorite words on this site and it is no longer a positive one.
I can see there is no reason for me to check back in after posting this so I just wanted to wish you and everyone else a great life!
Good luck!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
I love you Joe G.
(AND your wife!!)
(Had always wondered about you both…)
And yes, no need to check back now for either of us. Your note was the cherry on top.
(THANK YOU)
Cheers to living our lives.
(Have beach bag, notebook, and puppy in tow…
now I really can go.)
This was like … MAGIC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I stand corrected. Jesus Christ is a RE-invention, as he has several nearly duplicate predecessors. And you can’t prove a negative – that something doesn’t exist, so that request for proof is based on a false premise. The burden of proof falls to existence, not non-existence. As for spending over 40 years in something I then discover is mostly fabrication, that’s not hard to understand. Change is not the preference of the vast majority of people. And in my case, I was indoctrinated (apparently to a much greater extent than havAgr8Day) from my youth. People tend to stay within their comfort zone. They may stumble upon truth, but they usually pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and continue on their way. So, the real question is how could I leave it. But, that is a simple answer, too. Because as much as I appreciate comfort, I appreciate the truth more, and I detest being lied to.
I don’t need to write a book. Volumes on this subject have already been written; and very well documented, I might add. So, again, this is a frivolous comment which reflects what many people are content to be: and that is spoonfed. Do you really want to know? Then look it up for yourself. Why should I bend over backwards to hand you the benefit in detail ad infinitum ad nauseam, what has taken me years to learn and discover?
Some folks have a very small world and don’t want to venture out of it to discover what they don’t already know. Heaven forbid, they might find something that challenges their beliefs. That’s fine. I understand that. But, I’m not interested in fairy tale beliefs, I’m interested in truth. havAgr8Day didn’t provide the references I requested, namely the atheist or scholar who has documented proof of the historic Jesus. It would doubtless be a waste of time to try to find. I spent 6 mos. looking for it under every rock I could think of and still nothing. I’m still open, though. so if anybody out there knows of something I haven’t found yet, I’d certainly be willing to look at it.
Frog, you missed my point entirely. I wasn’t saying you were judging me, only pointing out one of many contradictions in the teachings of Christianity. My apologies if I come off as abrasive. I’m just sick to death of being lied to, especially when it’s intentional. In fact, one survey taken of clergymen revealed a very interesting, (and should be disturbing) truth. Most of them don’t believe what they preach, especially if they have an Ivy League educational background. They know the history; the history that they won’t talk about with their parishioners and that is easily hidden from them, since very few people ever bother to investigate it beyond the pathetic excuse for history that they got in high school. Many pastors freely admitted that they didn’t really have a good marketable skill, so clergyman seemed the most logical career choice. Prime example: my parents’ pastor claims to be an expert in ancient history and fluent in Sumerian, among other ancient languages. He has degrees and everything, but found himself working at Costco. Couldn’t make a living with his degrees, so off to seminary he went. But, despite his knowledge of history and fluidity in ancient languages, he has failed to mention the fact that the ancient Sumerian writings contain a good portion of what is commonly referred to as the 10 Commandments. Why would this info be so damning? Because it predates Moses (THE Law-Giver) by some 2500 years, that’s why. And if we question Moses, then the whole foundation starts to crumble, since he is the assumed author of the first five books of the Bible. And then there’s the code of Hammurabi – also a version of the 10 Commandments that predates Moses.
So, from where I sit, choosing to continue believing the lie after I’ve come face to face with the truth would then make me my own worst enemy, not the other way around.
And havAgr8Day, the next time you decide to pop in, take the time to show the rest of the group a little more courtesy. While your rambling creative process may work for you in the long run, it’s something of an insult to those of us who actually take the time to arrange our thoughts before we burden others with them. Our time is precious, too. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
ZerO, I’ve copied the sites you listed to a file I can look at later when I’m at my daughter’s house. The video downloads don’t work well out here in the sticks with dial-up, but she has satellite, so I’ll get to look then. I did get a quick look at Tom Bearden’s and will give it more time later. Looked really interesting. You might want to check out http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com. That one will blow your socks off.
The adventure and balance it will bring to your life is awesome.
It’s been real, but the weather won’t hold out much longer and it’s time I got back into my field. (Pun intended.) Take care of that little girl of yours…and for Pete’s sake, have more!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 12th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
so, humans are wolves in sheeps clothing(something that God warned us about), and that makes God an invention…I don’t have a problem with “judge not, lest ye be judged.” prolly because I don’t judge people…I just listen to what they say, and make a judgement call on the info…that’s what I did with Dyer…
The Pope makes you kiss his ring…Ok, fine…but that’s not Jesus…Jesus would wash your feet instead showing that service to others is the highest calling…Jesus warned us about man-made dogma and taught us a golden rule and also forgiveness…people often confuse religion with God…televangelists are not God, and should not cause one to lose faith in God…just lose faith in the televangelists…if they don’t believe what they preach, then they are false, and I will move on…many people, I beleive, have altered the history books to make it appear as though Christ never happened…they tried to cover up His death and resurrection by saying the body was moved…they confiscated writings…anyone who claimed to be an eyewitness to miracles were locked up or put to death…so, for me, to site books that “prove” He never existed, or explained how things “really happened” doesn’t sway me as a Christian…I consider them all propaganda…
It really is a disadvantage that in the written word, you can’t hear my tone of voice, because I am not yelling or being sarcastic…just talking, and I respect your point of view…just don’t agree:)
so many people have written something only to come back and say, “I didn’t mean to be rude, etc.” It’s fine with me that in debates we are passionate to our point of view.
Anyway, although I don’t fully expect to turn non-beleivers into Christians with a post on a blog, I do want to make you reconsider your faith in God…and forget about all the phonies…
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 13th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Jodee: I found your next-to-the-last long post (about J and Dyer’s child) absorbing.
But, my question: Why is J’s LITERAL , Concrete, physical life so crucial (of course it is, for emotional reasons, I understand that.) And I’m not underestimating your quest for truth. But, once and for all, can we accept that the notion of God (and all his sons, etc.) is ARCHETYPAL, meaning (grossly speaking) it has to do with a primordial, universal core of PSYCHICAL energy (…), ideational and emotional, without which we cannot live (be it a personal God, of this faith or that, followed or abused, etc.)
Back to Dyer: The fact that he’s not a perfect human being, nor exactly consistent (words and deeds), doesn’t mean he can’t be a teacher in some ways.
Did he really hint in any way that he was a “prophet”?
Dear HavA, go to the beach but don’t commit to leaving us, I enjoy your style a lot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 13th, 2007 at 6:18 am
Alright, I’m leaving now. I am. Yep.
No really, I’m leaving.
This is it…I’m gone.
Okay, I warned you. I’m leaving now.
I’m outta here.
Goodbye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 13th, 2007 at 6:19 am
Okay. I told you. I’m leaving.
Goodbye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 13th, 2007 at 6:20 am
No really. Who needs this? I’m leaving.
I’m going now…don’t try to stop me.
Have a good life, all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 13th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Honest! I’m not coming back. Okay.
I’m leaving now for real.
I’m going. Really!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 13th, 2007 at 6:23 am
This is it. I’m not kidding. Goodbye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 13th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Okay, I’m leaving now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 13th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Jodee, thanks for the link. This is the best gift I have had lately. Really thank you.
WOW
There is a tornado brewing in my mind. I can’t sit still. My hands are turning into fists.
Part 1
If people after watching this are still holding on to their religious beliefs they deserve the miserable life and world they have built for themselves.
Of course they could say that this video is the work of the devil and continue living the sweet lie.
Part 2. You remember what I wanted to do to the person that would hurt my daughter? Now multiply that by a billion. I wish I had special glasses so I could spot them. I would have a real “training operation” with them.
Part 3. I’m furious now. But I realize that anger should only be the fuel for action. I have a better sense of the enemy now. The herd is just an inconvenience, it’s the “shepherd” that is my target now.
We should use the same tactics that they use. Turn them against each other. How do we defeat them? I don’t know, YET.
Where are you Neo (the Matrix)?
Jodee, thanks again. This is great. Now I can just send people this link rather then trying to explain them everything. I’m not really good at talking and explaining. This is a fantastic tool.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 14th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Caveat Lector
As the summer draws to an end
And so, seemingly, our heartfelt intent,
A very long, colorful human trail
Commences to the Captain’s word “Sail!”
The Scientist Gran gives the tools for the job
Some sailors obey,
The soft, poetic ones sob.
The Dyer is busy colouring sails
But. alas, though he strives,
He can’t paint the skies.
On high, faintly heard, The Nazarene:
(while his friends keep debating the scene)
“Eli’ Eli, Lama Azavtani?”
And Wayne
Tries to comfort
In vain
(and aided by more than a wife):
“HE hasn’t, Son, say Aaahh, this is Life!”
On and on, almost six hundred waves,
But guys….please behave
While the Skiier observes, somewhat sad.
Now, the Child: “NO, please don’t cry, Dad”
Mothers, on each side, one Hip, other Strong
And the Child, pure, nor soft, neither snappy:
“Please Dave and Dad, please be happy”.
Happy Fall to you all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 14th, 2007 at 4:00 am
This blog reminds me of the “bull” sessions we had in college in the early 70′s. No blogs back then. No computers even.
I am impressed with the knowledge and the intelligence so many of you demonstrate. I’m not intellectual, scientific or even well read. On my best days my intelligence is almost average and I am not just being humble. Keep reading and I’ll prove it to you. (I do know who Tesla was, I read “COMOS” by Carl Sagan.)
I am an good artist. I am a good observer.
I have seen Dr. Wayne Dyer many times on PBS telethons… I’m up late a lot. I tend to like the guy. I was initially surprised that he can generate such critical conversation. (I confess that in the 80′s I bought Tony Robbins “Personnel Power” tapes. What can I say, I was trying to improve myself.) I also must admit that Dr. Dyer and Mr. Robbins haven’t significantly changed my life as far as I can tell, but I’ll take most of the blame for that.
While I don’t read much I did enjoy “The Power of Myth” by Joseph Campbell and the topics of this blog reminds me a lot of that series and book. Mr. Campbell talked a lot about religion and philosphy. He challenged the reader, “Are you going to live the life of safety and security, or are going to take the hero’s journey?”. I quit my blue collar job and my middle class but comfortable life and moved to Colorado.
JQP. Thanks for that story about the “mean boss”. It was powerful. Such a wonderful insight.
Jodee. I didn’t study as faithfully as you did but I did go to a Catholic grade school, taught by Fransican nuns, a Catholic high school taught by the School Sisters of Notre Dame, and even a Catholic college. My observations didn’t support what I was being taught.
I once worked with a guy who had a great need to have a theory or a belief about everything, even UFO’s. It finally occured to me that he was just not comfortable with the unknown. I, on the other hand, I seemed to be able to tolerate the unknown rather well. I was comfortable with the mysteries in the corners. I have learned to appreciate this ablitiy. I suspect many people, even Mother Teresa apparently, often have a crisis of faith but keep going to church anyway. I often question the existence of God, but when I do pray it is as Emily Dickenson prayed, ” as a congregation of one”. It doesn’t take much discussion with someone to realize that their religion is as individual and unique as they are. Everybody is a “congregation of one”. Whatever disagreements you may have with Dr. Wayne Dyer he does seem to advocate a more personal connection with the mystery of life that doesn’t require one faith, or one dogma. I am comfortable with that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 14th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
When the play had ended,
a wise and humble spectator
decided to speak,
and the quiet one – Hana
‘s poem made me weep.
Joe G was right about me needing to step away for real. But I think I will begin a blog over at Livejournal – which will be all about WONDER. And everyone here – who I’d otherwise miss in different ways – would be welcome to share.
The Blog (when I get a moment to begin it…) will be a post where all can share about what we don’t know, and all the joy that can be found there.
I’ll post a link in this journal once I begin it.
Hopefully by the Holidays.
Love, me
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 14th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Wow! Crap! I looked at this http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com and I was blown away. Thank you, Jodee!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 17th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
That’s what I like about Dr. Dyer and many like him. He doesn’t force his values on others. You can choose him or lose him. He won’t come knocking on your door to drag you to his church. He won’t beat his ideals or values down your throat. You can accept or not. I’m not sure I agree with everything but you still have the freedom of choice. Look at the middle east. If there not dying over land then it’s God. I never want to see that kind of fundamentalism in this country. Dr Dyer leaves the choice of God up to me. That’s the way it should be. If I want to believe in Zeus then I’ll believe in Zeus!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 18th, 2007 at 11:53 am
JQP, Jodee, are you still out there?
This blog is turning into a ghost town.
It has become apparent that if we take out the personal attack/counter attack followed by apology or “I didn’t say/mean that”, then there is nothing substantial to discuss. I was afraid of this.
My proposal is still the same. If anybody is interested in discussion then we should pick a subject and set a date for start of discussion.
A link to a video or a website that everyone could go to and research would work for starters. Then on a specified date everyone can share their views and opinions for or against the subject matter giving their reasons for their choices.
We could have several discussions active at a time.
If there is nothing to discuss then it’s time for me to move on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 18th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I’m back, if ever so briefly. Lots to do and catch up on, but wondered what was happening in dabaconland. ZerO and elwizardo, glad you were able to see the video link. Thanks for taking a look at it. Pretty heavy stuff, there. More people need to wake up. Get the word out. If you have the capability of making a DVD off the site, do it and pass it along. There are no copyrights for that very reason. The producer wants people to know what’s on there. And BTW, Aaron Russo, who was key in producing this movie, died suddenly of a “massive heart attack” last month. (Hhhmmm. Really? One wonders.)
Frog, I understand that you just don’t get where I’m coming from or where I’ve gone. There’s one thing that pretty much universally causes one to loose faith in anything/anyone, and that is the realization that they have been deceived and betrayed. The false claims of authenticity that, as it turns out, were actually manufactured by the power-hungry “Holy Roman Empire” and it’s successor, the “Holy Roman Catholic Church”, which is no less power-hungry, are eye-opening to those who want to see, and non-existant for those who don’t. After all, you can always blame the devil. And BTW, “catholic” means universal, so that right there should give a clue to the scope of their vision for themselves. And “church” comes from the German word for circus. That pretty much sums it up: a universal circus – three ring, no less. The fact that one isn’t officially Catholic, doesn’t exempt one from that influence. ALL forms of Christianity sprang from one mother, the RC, and ALL of them have her DNA. So, you evangelicals out there – don’t be sitting there and thinking that this little dilemma is unique to me because I was raised in a psuedo-catholic denomination. You bear the marks of the beast, too.
hana, the reason historic evidence for the existence of the person “Jesus” is so important to me, is that all my life he was presented just that way – as an actual figure in history. If he didn’t really exist, then the tenets that revolve around him are NOT set in stone. In fact, they carry no more weight than the sayings of Confusious or any other sage, for that matter. That’s not to say that the Bible has nothing of value to offer or that none of what it contains is true. There is value and truth to many parts of it. However, it was taught in my church as the irrefutable word of God – the last word, the ONLY truth. And THAT is the lie. Jesus can’t be the ONLY way, truth, light, and life, if the same is claimed for Horus.
Frog might reply that Horus is the lie. Maybe, but that explanation has a two-fold problem. Horus came first, by centuries, so the likelihood that what came first is the lie, as opposed to what came last, is slim at best. The other problem is that the Bible repeatedly calls on believers to set themselves apart from all other gods and their various forms of worship. “Do not take the names of pagan gods on your lips.” “Do not do for Me what the pagans do for their gods.” “Do not learn the ways of the pagans.” etc. So, if Jesus is an exact copy of Horus, then we have a HUGE problem with all of those references, not to mention the observance of Christmas, Easter, and Sunday worship, all of which originated in paganism. (See: Christianity: Roots of a Pagan Religion, by Phillipe Walter – this is a very academic read, so it may require a dictionary and your full concentration to understand it. Plus, it’s translated from French. But, it is well worth the effort.)
Now, if you take Jesus as a concept, then fine, but that only proves my point that he is an invention; a conceptual icon for a set of ideologies. However, that hardly qualifies him as the son of god, if by god, one is referring to a higher intelligent being/creator.
I still believe in a Creator at this point. I can’t really go to atheism. It just doesn’t make sense to me. There is both external and internal evidence for a supremely intelligent being and I don’t think it’s necessarily folly to want to know who or what that is. It’s just that I’m no longer invested in any religion to explain to me whoever he is. I am willing to keep searching and discovering whatever I can discover – “prove” out whatever I can. I believe I explained all this in a much earlier post, so I won’t detail it all now.
And yes, Dyer has claimed prophethood. I heard it from his own lips on the latest PBS broadcast that I watched, (out of morbid curiosity.) And I quote: “I’m a prophet. I get paid by the thought.” This, a reply to his son who was expecting his help registering for college. Wayne had better things to do, namely get paid to think. You can make what you want out of that, but I saw yet another indication of a self-absorbed male who has grossly over-estimated his own worth to the world. Not that he should have held his 18 year old’s hand and taken him through the process. But there are much kinder more encouraging ways of accomplishing the goal of making your older kid more self-reliant.
While Dyer doesn’t come knocking on your door trying to get you to go to his “church”, he has much more seductive ways of drawing in the gullible. He is an excellent speaker. He has a charismatic, almost hypnotic way of communicating – to the point where if you aren’t listening with an objective detached mindset, it’s difficult to unravel the web of conundrum and contradiction that he weaves; to the point where it may be undetectable.
Funny that Tony Robbins has come up. My ex bought his tapes, too. Only listened to one of them, and of course they also made no difference in his life, either. In fact, I doubt that TR has really made much of difference in anyone’s life, if you look at the percentage of people who have funded his lavish lifestyle by attending his “workshops”, buying his books, tapes, magazine, etc. There’s another self-absorbed male looking for people to “worship” him. Don’t believe me? Look at his monthly publication. His face is literally on every page and both covers.
Well, it’s back to the fields for me. Glad to see some new participants. And ZerO, I’d still like to discuss home-schooling with you. Got any ideas other than this sight?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 19th, 2007 at 5:42 am
Correction on that book title- Christianity: The Origins of a Pagan Religion. (available from Amazon) Sorry about that. Got it mixed with another book title.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 19th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
So I must ask, as we look into ourselves, can it be said that from all the truths man swears an oath to, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, etc., that the only absolute truth is that there is no “one God” and that throughout time the myths we have created to perpetrate a civilized and morale society have slowly eroded the very nature of our existence?
Is it fair to say that “God is murdered, and we are his murderers?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 21st, 2007 at 8:00 am
NihilisX – I still tend to think that there is only one higer intelligence, mostly because of the continuity and consistancy I observe in the natural order of everything, and because historically, polytheism seems to have been developed AFTER monotheism. All myths start with a truth. You can’t have a lie without frist having a truth. A quote I keep in mind pretty much sums it up for me: I don’t know who god is, but I sure know who he isn’t.
If by his murderers, you mean that we have altered, destroyed, or otherwise obscurred his true nature or being, then yes, I would concur with your supposition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Jodee, what is your definition of God? Is it “higher intelligence”?
In my opinion truth doesn’t come before a lie or the other way around. Both come into existence simultaneously. I have stated in my prior posts that as soon as you create anything you simultaneously create the opposite or the “absence” of whatever you just created. Truth-lie, good-bad, black-white, anything you can imagine.
I disagree with the quote: “I don’t know who god is, but I sure know who he isn’t”. To me that god is an incomplete god because it is a divided god. That god is a man made god. It does not encompass everything in the universe and therefore is not everywhere and in everything.
If I had to put a label of God I would say that the universe (known and unknown) is God. This God is everywhere simultaneously. It is pure potential and a source from which everything starts. It is both the good and the bad, the entropy and neg-entropy. All opposites are within it including nothingness and infinity. It just is. If you put anything after “is” than that thing is part of God and not God itself because it is a subset of the whole. God is the whole. If you say God is “this” and “that” then what you exclude must be beyond God where God does not exist. This God would be a finite and powerless God created by finite and powerless intellects.
The God (another label for universe) that I am talking about has already put infinite energy and freedom at our disposal. If we are clever enough to do something, then God will not promote OR interfere with it, will not reword OR punish for it, because God is all of those things simultaneously.
Worshiping such a good is meaningless because it has already given everything there is to give and there is nothing we can give it that it doesn’t already have.
Believing or not believing that this is so has no effect on the Universe.
There is only ONE pair of zero-infinity. This ONE contains nothing and everything simultaneously. All things known and unknown are a subset of this. This ONE is GOD, the whole UNIVERSE.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
ZerO – I don’t have a well-defined “God”, as it were. First of all, I only use that term, so other people will have a point of reference. I actually have a problem with that term, as it does generally refer to the various humanly contrived images (and therefore, finite ideas,) of something or someone that is incomprehensible. So, when I quote, “I don’t know who God is, but I sure know who he isn’t”, what I mean is that, I don’t understand all the attributes, qualities, characteristics, etc. of that incomprehensible entity, but I know for sure he isn’t who religion says he is. (And I use the pronoun, “he”, in a generic sense, not a gender sense; like using “man” to mean all humankind.) In one of my first postings, I stated that I thought the Creator is an electrical being. And so, as such, I do agree with you in a sense, that he/it is everywhere and in everything. Or at least his nature is: that is, his electrical nature. I can’t think of “him” as the whole universe, because as big as it is, even that is finite.
I do think that truth came first – originally. And here’s why. Throughout human history, as far as we know, humans seem always to be searching and striving for something that is better – a perfection, if you will, that is incomprehensible (like the Creator,) and equally unattainable in our less that perfect state. And here’s where I think the Bible still reflects a shred of that truth. Why else would humans instinctively know that we/things could and should be better, no matter how prosperous, or how well a society is flourishing? We are never satisfied. I think that’s because in our wild memory, we know that we once were in a state of perfection and we instinctively long for it, strive for it, but never reach it. It’s as though, once the lie came, then that state of perfection was forever destroyed. So, I suppose that I could agree with you in that context – that truth and lie exist simultaneously now, after that fact.
We also naturally find death abhorrent, almost as though it is NOT a natural state. We, as a race, are constantly trying to find ways around it, to prevent it or at least delay it. The ancient Chinese believed that if they could just find the right combination of nutrients; just the right ways to nourish the body, they could live forever. They came darn close, but they still died. We even see this sense of death and loss demonstrated in animals of higher intelligence. Elephants go through a mourning and sometimes even a type of burial process. (Saw that on PBS years and years ago. It was amazing!) Mourning, sometimes for very long periods of time, has been observed in the large apes. I think this fear or abhorrence of death may actually be the primary motivating factor behind the formation of religions – as a way to deal with death. It’s almost as though people need some sort of artificial mindset in order to deal with this unnatural event. They need to know that they will continue to exist in some sense or at some future time. Even those who look at death as a completely natural thing, have “talked” themselves into that mindset through some sort of process, be it meditation, mysticism, or what have you.
So, if it is true, that everything originally was in a perfect state, then the Creator is also perfect, embodying both good and evil, male and female, etc., in complete harmony – something we humans seem to be incapable of emulating. If the Creator does not embody evil, but only good, then there has to be a co-creator who does embody evil. And there we have the birth of polytheism. I tend to reject the latter, but maybe that’s just the last bit of churchianity lingering. However, there has always been a sense of struggle between good and evil, in it’s most basic form, so, again, I tend to think that that is part of a wild memory.
The truth is, there IS punishment in the form of natural consequences, aside from those civil punishments which man institutes. For example: What is the natural punishment/consequence for eating pig, squirrel, shellfish, etc. (all the foods listed in the un-clean list in Leviticus.)? It is parasites that cause disease, and diseases that develop from the inability to digest those proteins. (See University of Hawaii study in the early to mid 80′s. Sorry I can’t be more specific. It’s been a really long time since I read it.) And what is the natural consequence of sexual relations with animals? Venereal diseases. If disease is a natural state, then why do we instinctively fight to overcome it? Why not just succumb to it and die? There are natural boundaries and natural consequences (punishments, if you will,) for violating them. A lot of people try to pay for their sins against nature with drugs and surgery – and boy, do they pay!
On a larger scale, I see cycles of cleansing, that I think might rightfully qualify as punishment – periods of geological cataclysmic events that have come in the wake of prevalent evil and in essence forced us to start all over. The December tsunami, and dare I say it, Katrina – is it a coincidence that these things hit a couple of the most perverse decadent areas/cities? Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t know. But, there is evidence of a world wide flood. There is evidence of the land masses splitting – once being joined together. We are now sitting right next to the super-volcano known as Yellowstone National Park. And as the majority of geologists will concur, there is no such thing as a “dead” volcano. Most aren’t saying ‘If”, they’re saying “When”. You don’t have to look very far to see evidences of unspeakable evil and evidence that it is definitely increasing. Then look at the timetables of history. Pompeii – very decadent and perverse society. And that’s just one example. I can’t think of any societies that were largely altruistic – that didn’t engage in sexual perversions, human sacrifices, and the like that were wiped out. Maybe I’ve missed something, though. So, feel free to upset this apple cart.
I think there is one thing – only one thing – that we can “give” to an infinite entity. That would be respect. There are obvious natural laws in place with obvious natural consequences. To me respect, (worship, if you will,) is acknowledging those laws and living within their bounds, and beyond that, living by our natural wild conscience. We know it’s wrong to murder. We know it’s wrong to usurp/confiscate that which belongs to someone else. We know it’s wrong to do harm to others. We have a sense of ownership and a built in sense of justice – that there should be some sort of justice. We don’t all agree on exactly what form that justice should take, but we do all know there should be some. Every society, no matter how “uncivilized”, has some codes of conduct that are common to every other society. To me, this speaks to a conscious thinking Creator of order. I just don’t see how it could be the product of some random evolutionary process.
I suppose, that now I’ve really stirred the pot. Oh, well. As I said, I’m an equal opportunity offender. Don’t take it personally. I’m not claiming to have it all figured out. I’m still in process – probably will be till I die. But, I’m not charging a fee or selling a book. So, feel free to do with it as you like. It’s just my opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 24th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I was thinking about the truth/lie simultaneous idea over the weekend. (Yeah, I actually had time to think!
) I’m not so sure that actually applies across the board, because it tends to be an exclusively black and white, either/or scenario, as though there are only 2 possibilities. A truth doesn’t necessarily have an opposite. So, I still think, for the most part, truth is the beginning and lies follow, mostly because where there is a truth, there can be many lies that follow, not all of them occurring simultaneously with the truth. Then there are are the half truths – the grey areas and the evolutions of those grey areas. If they stay gray, they’re more likely to attract an “audience”, as it were. Whereas if the lie is completely black (ie., completely false,) it is obvious and much less attractive. Truth can stand on it’s own without a lie or half-truth, but lies and half-truths can only exist where there is truth. And that’s where guys like Dyer get their audiences. He throws in just enough truth to make it seem plausible to the vastly non-thinking masses. That’s the thing about esoteric thinking – there are no opposites. It’s mostly grey and seldom all white.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 24th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
That’s the thing about black and white thinking.
If you look at a color wheel,
you will see all the shades of grey and off-white that connect them.
When you look at your friend,
do you see only their best qualities?
Only their worst?
People vary, but many often seem to see both – and often see how their strengths and weaknesses can be two sides of the same coin.
I’m guessing that if a person dwells in polarities, that that is how they will view the world.
If you’re more prone to trying to accept and unite the various parts of the whole –
you’ll be more prone to seeing the greys –
and actually, possibly? seeing how there is great truth also in grey. And maybe how it is all part of the same thing…
When people have been injured by a system – it would make sense to step back, and to put up very severe boundaries.
It might also make sense to have an “us” versus “them” mentality. At least initially.
But after a while, if one looks truthfully at individuals, it is probably not a very useful tool.
Some white people in the united states risked their lives to help black people a long the freedom trail to the north during the times of slavery.
Some white people exploited and abused black people as slaves during that same time.
And some white people – like the man who wrote Amazing Grace – changed and grew and profoundly transformed – from somebody who contributed to great brutality, to somebody who opened his eyes, and changed his life completely.
If somebody who was african american and living in the US tried to paint every white person living in this country with the same brush, it would be understandable.
But, it would be innaccurate.
And potentially a hindrance to him or her.
Whether people embrace the fact that everyone is on an independent journey in this life – or reject it – it does seem to be the truth.
In art history, the society/culture that produced the art if often taught as well.
Many art historians, who have spent time learning latin etc., – believe that the Catholic church changed different things at different times – literally altering timelines – so that those timelines would line up with pagan traditions; thus allowing people to feel more comfortable embracing different beliefs (no orgies or sacrifices – at least not technically).
During the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church commissioned paintings that art historians believed once again slightly altered, at least a couple of women figures, in the Bible. Many art historians believed that this was done to convey the message to individuals that “if you left the church, you can come back” as the point of the paintings was one of forgiveness and redemption.
The majority of people at that time did not read or write – let alone communicate on a dime with millions of people using the internet.
Thus, art was potentially a way of communicating to people who could not read, as well as to those who spoke other languages.
It seems very hard to try to assess all of these things with a one-size fits all answer.
Life seems to be easier when one assumes that one will always be it’s student. Not other people’s students necessarily, but life’s student.
Somehow, it seems to be easier as well once someone accepts that it may be impossible to tell what happened thousands of years ago.
Individuals can probably all benefit much from opening to it.
Maybe once you stop being harmed by a system, you can stand separately from it – knowing that all the others in it are just like you – and maybe that at some other point in their life – they will make different decisions.
Maybe once you stop being harmed by a system, you can stand separately from it – knowing that all the others in it are not like you – and some may be giving and receiving things at a much higher (or lower) level.
Maybe just say “AHHHHHHHH, this is life.”
And consider opening windows in your own life – to let in some fresh air.
And consider being gentle with oneself.
Maybe after that it is easier to be gentle with others.
Questions.
To live with?
At least the people who come to this site seem to care. That seems like an awfully good starting point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 24th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Jodee, let’s first discuss the concept of truth.
As a concept it must be timeless. So right away there can not be a before and after (before and after are concepts also) because we eliminate the time element. As soon as you define what truth is, that which it is not is automatically and simultaneously defined. It is like action and reaction. If you define what half truth is, right away you have defined what half lies are. The closer you move to the center of the gray area you see that truth and lie blend into each other and you can’t make a distinction. This is the equilibrium of the universe where truth and lie are the same thing. If they are the same then they are tied to each other. They either don’t exist or they exist as a pair. So the “eye of the beholder” makes the distinction, makes the definition, and places the label. The universe does not provide labels. Man has the monopoly on that business.
It is like polarization. As soon as you create one of the poles (truth) the opposite pole (lie or not truth) is automatically created by the universe. As soon as you create a negative charged pole the universe will generate a positive charged space around that negative charge.
As another example imagine a flat rubber sheet (this is the universe at equilibrium). Looking at it from either side it is flat. If you push from one side you will create a curvature that will look convex from one side and concave from the other side. So the concepts of convex and concave come into being simultaneously as you push. You couldn’t push the rubber sheet in a way that produced a convex curvature on one side and still stayed flat on the other side. This is just a simple example but illustrates the point.
For the universe (or my definition of God) everything exists simultaneously. For the universe all the concepts that we come up with are meaningless. It is not conscious of itself or us because it is timeless. Consciousness is tied to the flow of time and to the existence of something other than the self. If you can not register a change in yourself from moment to moment (flow of time) and there is nothing else that you can use as a reference for comparison (something other than self) then there is no consciousness, no awareness, there is no experience, there is no life. Since there is only one universe or whole, there is nothing for comparison. Since there is no flow of time for the universe as a whole then it can not use itself as a reference for comparison. So as a whole it has no consciousness, no awareness of itself and especially of us.
Worshiping this God (universe) has no benefit to this God since it is not even aware of it. If there is any benefit it is for the worshiper, which makes this act a selfish act.
I think the best way to acknowledge God is to understand the universe and how it operates and use that knowledge for the benefit and well being of our local space-time (let’s say our planet for right now, maybe our solar system later on). The universe will take care of itself.
As far as Dyer, he is what he is. He is not responsible for his audience. Every person has to take responsibility for his/her life and choices. If someone does not want to take responsibility for their life and prefers to stay ignorant and makes choices that lead to unpleasant conclusions then it is no one’s fault but their’s. They deserve what they get.
What is the definition of ignorance? I would say that not understanding how the universe (God) works is ignorance. Going against the workings of the universe can hurt you. How does the universe operate? Well that’s what we are trying to figure out, together.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Okay, Zer0. I get your context. Mine was really a context of time, not timelessness, since I’m basically dealing with events/doctrines in an historical setting. As you said, the universe will take care of itself, so since I am confined to operating within the bounds of time, aspects of timelessness are mostly irrelevant to me, at least on a day to day basis. A lot of things are concrete rock-solid true and some just aren’t. They’re either theory or musings or some other kind of dogma. So, what I’m saying is that as a race/specie with an apparent beginning within time, truth was all we had in that beginning. Things were what they were. It is after that beginning of time/existance that the human race changes what is into perceptions of what is. Thus, the movement in thought from white (truth) to ever increasingly darker shades of grey.
For instance, geneticists have discovered that all human DNA originated from the same two parents. Hmmm. Sounds like Adam and Eve. Well, is that the real account or a mythical story based on the existing truth? I tend to believe the latter, but the myth still has an element of truth. That’s what I’m talking about when I say that lies/deceptions/half-truths start with truth. Truth could have stood on its own, but the confluent myth cannot because the truth is the point of reference for the myth.
I have a bit of trouble viewing the universe as synonymous with god. There are events that have happened in my life that I can’t explain outside of the interaction of some kind of higher being or consciousness and the universe just seems too vague to me. I look back at the path of my life and think, “Holy crap! How the heck did I manage to get here?” or “Wow. That decision should have resulted in disaster, but it turned out for the the best.” I’m talking about things/events/effects that were outside my control, and some that happened despite my every effort to control them to the contrary. Some would say coincidence, but all those things fit together too well for me to buy into that notion. How did I get to this point in my life despite my ineptitude?! I’m living the life I always dreamed of, finally married to my soul mate and the love of my life, (we finally found each other less than 18 mos. ago.) It’s almost like no matter how I screwed things up; no matter how many unwise and just plain bad choices I made, I got here anyway with very little conscious effort. Opportunities fell into my lap and I guess the most I can say is that I was smart enough to recognize them and take advantage of them, although, had they come at different times in my life, I either wouldn’t have been able to act on them, or they would have been wrong at that time. Why did they come at just the right time and not the wrong time? So, even that has an element outside my control or consciousness. Of course, none of this is the least bit scientific and it’s completely unprovable. It’s just my own internal evidence that I have interpreted as someone somewhere having had a personal involvement with me at various times. And that’s because I just can’t seem to come up with a better explanation.
I absolutely agree that Dyer’s audiences are responsible for themselves: to think or not to think, to evaluate or not, to discern or not. Self-responsibility is the basis for that free market I was referring to way back on an earlier post. Individuals bear the responsibility for their own ignorance and/or dishonesty, and any decisions they make, as well as the resulting consequences. The minute regulation is introduced, it removes a degree of responsibility and becomes a manipulated market to whatever degree regulation is introduced. I don’t know that human beings as a whole are even capable of handling that kind of responsibility. They seem to tend toward that old Adamic quality of passing the buck. It certainly seems obvious that as a whole, they don’t want to. That’s what enables the few and elite to rule the masses. The masses are generally lazy when it comes to taking responsibility for themselves. Within those masses are a few independent thinkers who weren’t born into the elitist class and who, in any event, have no desire to rule, but wish only to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. (And so long as “as they see fit” is not harmful to anyone else, they should be free to do just that.) Unfortunately, they tend to suffer the injustices due to the lazy right along side them. In a sense, those who would gladly take responsibility for themselves are inhibited from doing so by those who don’t want to.
So, while a few of us are out here are trying to figure out how the universe works, those who know history and understand economics are busy trying to keep us enslaved and distracted with their crap. That seems to be how this little part of the universe works.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
A question: how many people are truly (only) lazy and unthinking?
Can the appearance of laziness mask depression, fear, confusion, lack of informational resources, the desire not to hurt parents who sacrificed for them, or any number of other things?
If everyone has a brain, might it be possible that everyone uses it to the best that they know how – at that moment in time?
Is it possible that everybody is on some journey of growth?
If we feel pain, might not others as well?
And when we make mistakes (participating in anything we later view as mistaken) – might we accidentally be causing others the same grief that we feel that they cause us when we make mistakes?
Is is possible, perhaps not probable, (but possibly probable
), that all humans are on a simlar path of learning – that requires mistakes as part of the learning curve?
Could one’s inner journey of growth – be compared to an ever expanding spiral? If the growth continues and fear doesn’t cause it to contract…
Just Questions
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Is it possible that if a person can see areas in their life where they made mistakes, that their consciousness was a little in the grey at that time?
Is it possible that if we want to continue growing, that we might want to embrace this as part of the growth process?
Is it possible that thousands of years ago – when communicating and travelling took years and sometimes decades, that parables/stories/myths and art were used to tell more concrete truths so that they would translate easier and be more meaningful?
Is it possible, even possibly probable, that in thousands of years, even with our technological gifts, that people (if people still exist as we know it on this planet) will wonder if Hitler were actually a real person, or a myth – representing evil?
Is is possible that a government would make it illegal to say that the Hollocaust never happened?
(YES, because at least one has.)
Is it possible that a government would outlaw that because of a concern over preserving the truth for posterity’s sake.
Is it possible that some would argue that infringes upon free speech?
Is it possible to relate to truth (whether one decides to define it, or finds it, as myth, cultural parable, spiritual teachings, etc.) in the here and now based upon our own inner experiences?
Is love perhaps the one truest, brightest, whitest truth?
Were there perhaps far too many questions in this last post?
?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 26th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Shhhhh…
.
I think it is not that people are lazy and all the other things that you mentioned. Everyone has a mental capacity and uses it as best as they can since we are not given an instructional manual when we are born that specifies exactly how to operate for optimum performance. We are given freedom to operate in a free mode. This freedom places the responsibility for ourselves in our hands. If we choose to live by following the instructional manual of the society or the church or anyone else then it is our choice and we have to live with the consequences of that choice.
If we compile our own manual based on our experiences, the experiences of others, while keeping an open and free mind then we would be more independent and free. This will have it’s own consequences whether good or bad. So here is another choice that needs to be made.
In the time domain of the universe everything is about choices, changes, action/reaction, transformation, entropy/neg-entropy, etc…
Every choice me make (action) has a consequence (reaction) whether it happens right away or ofter a long time. If we collectively make a choice then we also collectively pay the consequences of that choice.
What I think gets people into trouble are assumptions. Assumptions have their place but if you start forgetting that assumptions are based on incomplete and maybe erroneous information and start believing that your assumptions are anything more than an imagined version of a real event, then you are distorting your minds vision. The reality that you build in your mind is now different than the reality of the universe. Assumptions about the past are especially vulnerable to distortion. Assumptions about god will make your mind a fertile ground for the “devil”
Once assumptions become rigid and turn into beliefs then you don’t see the reality but rather synthesize your own reality based on universes reality. You “drift” away from the universe and from God (based on my definition of god). You are no longer free. You are your mind’s prisoner because you no longer can experience the universe without the filters that you have created.
I got to get back to work, I’ll try to continue later if I can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 27th, 2007 at 10:06 am
I don’t know what neck of the woods you guys live in, but the vast majority of the people (and there have been MANY) on the west coast USA are not the least bit interested in truth or freedom or independence. A lot of them think they are, but what they really want is to be comfortably taken care of by the government nannies and reassured and spoonfed by the high priests of politics, pseudo-science, and religion. (Ooops! guess that was redundant. They’re all pretty much the same thing.) In essence, they’d rather be lied to. A plausible lie designed to lull and subjugate is more than welcome in their minds. Thinking for yourself and educating yourself is often hard work and most of the people I’ve been in contact with aren’t interested in hard work, especially if that would result in a dynamic paradigm shift, and especially if they’ve already reached a place they feel is comfortable. (Nevermind that that comfort they love so much can, and probably will be ripped out from under them at any time and leave them dangling, confused, and with no resources they’re aware of – no alternative tools in their toolbox of life.)
The overall attitude I get from people is: “Don’t confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.” And THAT is what I call lazy thinking. The mind that becomes contented with perceptions that, if they would just open their eyes and see, stand in the face of facts.
The holocaust was brought up, so there’s a prime example. Were all German people Nazis? Of course not. Did they all, or did even the majority, agree with Hitler’s agenda? I don’t think we can say that either. We could ask though, “How could this be going on in your own back yard and you did/said nothing? knew nothing? Didn’t the train loads of crying and screaming people going by your churches on Sunday mornings make you at least wonder? or did you just sing louder to drown it out.” “It’s too aweful to think about or consider. Nobody could be that cruel. There must be another explanation, although I’m not going to bother to find out what it is.” And there you have it. (BTW, my ancestral lineage is German. As a teenager, I still had relatives that were alive and had lived in Germany during that time, so the questions/answers I pose are not something I plucked out of thin air.) In that instance we can probably even add cowardice to the laziness.
It doesn’t matter how well documented the evidence is, the vast majority of people, in my experience, simply do not want to leave the cozy nest they have manufactured for themselves, even if it means freedom and health. And so the old adage: “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 27th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Really enjoyed the last posts…
More questions
Doesn’t the west coast of the US have one of the highest rates of illegal immigration? Humans who have risked their lives to live a different kind of life? To have the freedom to pursue freedom?
To have the freedom to secure some forms of physical security (however illusory that concept is or isn’t) for themselves and their families?
Wasn’t West LA one of the first areas in the US to vote in a known mayor who was homosexual?
On Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, isn’t survival the first need that he felt individuals needed to be met, before others could move up the rung to things like power and love and finally self-actualization (something that requires a high degree of individualization)?
Is blame ever more productively helpful than simply knowing the facts, understanding, and holding individuals accountable for their actions?
If cruelty exists, can it ever be stopped in the past? (Well, until we know how to time travel that is?
)
Is NOW the only time that we can act (one at a time) in a way that stops the cruelty that is happening right now?
Can we as individuals use our pain and knowledge regarding what happened during the holocaust to help prevent the genocides that are happening all over the world now?
In some ways, in terms of our ability to communicate, know information, and even see images of it – is what’s happening right now to many individuals around the world very much “right in our own back yards”?
Can we not see what is happening, hear what is happening?
Did Dyer himself not only bring an example of a woman who survived a terrible genocide, but also went on to live a full life in the present (while graciously educating others regarding what is and was going on) with forgiveness in her heart – to the awareness of anyone interested via public television?
Does anyone reading this post – not only others who are posting, but anyone – want to be part of what creates greater peace around the globe at this time?
In what ways can one do that? Here? Now?
Whether one focuses upon the spiritual teachings of Budha or Christ, or Zorasther, or Baha ullah (please forgive spelling) will one be less or more likely to contribute to the cruelty? (If one focuses upon the teachings, not the dogma and humans around them?)
Can one use one’s own ability to think independently as a tool to assist others in their growth toward that end as well?
Is that ability a gift in a way that could be shared – with tolerance and patience?
Peace right now to you…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 27th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
For Jodee, based upon your post several up:
Is it POSSIBLE that we indeed do have some sort of destiny?
For Zero,
Is it POSSIBLE that we do indeed NOT?
Is it possible to open our minds to both options?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 27th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Shhhhh…
In my opinion you can have A destiny (a fixed outcome in the future) if you don’t have freedom. If you are truly free then you don’t have A destiny because you continually change the future. Well I guess in this case your destiny was to be free of a destiny
In my mind both concepts exist simultaneously. I see the coexistence of opposite concepts (at least I try very hard) all around me all the time. It’s just a matter of re-training our minds. We are trained from the day we are born to have a stereo “vision” (stereotypical mind), to have an Either/Or mentality. It takes willingness and conscious effort to see beyond the stereotypes. I don’t view the events that happen to me or around me as good or bad. To me they are just that, events. They are reactions of past actions. If everyone took action against the first genocide of the 20th century, were 1.5 million Armenians (mostly women, children, and elderly) were massacred or driven to the desert to die, then the holocaust and genocides that followed would have been prevented (a reaction of an action). Hitler himself has stated “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” (direct quote). To this day Turkey is denying their genocide of the Armenians. At least Germans were humane enough to recognize their wrongdoing. Turks have not evolved enough to be considered humane.
So reactions occur due to actions and lack of reactions that counter the action. So those that do not react to counter an action contribute to and taste the fruit of the reaction to the action. We are all guilty in this respect and should see our responsibility in all undesirable reactions (events) around us.
Got to go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 27th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Jodee and Shhhhh…
Just kidding
You both make some real good points.
I think we should change Shhhhh… to S?????…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 28th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Yep. The holocausts are right in our own back yards for sure, yet they continue. Why? Because most people choose to believe the almighty government press when it tells us that killing an innocent is a choice and a right; that we need to use their tissues for “curing” diseases that have been created by a chemically altered and poisoned food supply, which the same propoganda machine tells us is good for us and has no bearing on our degenerative diseases. It’s always easier to look the other way – that is until they come for you; until they decide that you’re too old or too sick to justify the expense of keeping you alive. (Had an elderly friend who was, I believe, intentionally overdosed on morphene, but much to the surprise and seeming dismay of the nurses, it didn’t kill her.) You’ve just made my point about selective eye-sight and willing ignorance. It’s easier and safer to do nothing, especially when you see what happens to the few who actually do take a stand.
However, if events are neither good or bad, just events, then we needn’t concern ourselves with holocausts of any kind. They are what they are. But, I can’t really go there. It eventually flies in the face of order and decency, concepts that we humans, as a race seem to be born with, for the most part.
The fact that an undesirable event can still have a good eventual outcome only attests to the coexistance of both good and bad and the impurity of each.
Destiny is a mysterious thing. There are signs of it, but then there are also indications of will. It’s as though we’re all children heading in a certain direction. We get distracted or injured in some way, yet there is a “parent” to redirect, heal, or encourage/pull us back. It just seems that some people (children) don’t have a very good parent, or maybe they just refuse to “listen”. Perhaps it is in the combination of these aspects that destiny and will co-exist.
I’m not sure what the point was about the heavy illegal immigrant population of the West Coast. Where I live, this population has been responsible for a dramatic increase in sexual assaults, weapon, drug and vehicular crimes like hit and run. The press plays it down, but the police know it’s true. That would tend to lead one to think that the motivations of those crossing the border illegally are not at altruistic as the media propogandists would have us believe. Mexico is one of the most corrupt countries in this hemisphere. It only stands to reason that a significant portion of those coming from such a place would be at least influenced in their way of thinking and in their values by the society from which they’re coming. Many of them feel that this part of the world should belong to them anyway, because it was originally theirs. So, they come here with an indignant sense of entitlement. They clearly do not understand or respect the aspects of war and conquering. If you lose a war, you don’t get to keep your land. That’s just how the game is played. And look at what they’ve done in the land they did get to keep. Geez. They have oil resources, as well as other natural resources and yet remain one of the poorest countries on this side of the world. Why? Because they’re just a peso away from total anarchy. A system where you have to buy “justice” at every turn, where you have to assume that every official can be bought for a price, is a system that is just a nudge away from total lawlessness.
Holocausts and large scale injustices will continue as long as the masses allow an elite few to control their lives through their own greed and laziness. The more you want from government, the more enslaved you will be, because they will be happy to give it to you – for a price, and that price is your liberty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 28th, 2007 at 11:41 am
About Mexican illegal immigrants – was I perhaps getting too far afield there?
(Actually, my limited experience has been with the very impoverished immigrants, who come from Mexico as well as THROUGH Mexico from other countries – and are willing to take just about any job to have a shot at living a free, and not as corrupt, life. My experience a long the West Coast has been that a lot of people arrive here and stay here based upon their ability to think independently – but that may just be what I see because of where I’m looking…)
MOST IMPORTANT TO ME: I personally loved what you wrote about destiny Jodee (Zero, I thought your points were good and funny – especially based upon the more concrete definition of destiny/predestiny) – and found it to be highly interesting.
I too have shared many experiences that I’ve interpreted similarly to the way in which you described some of your life experiences Jodee.
It’s almost as if life, or some sort of higher intelligence (G-d?) keeps nudging my life in a certain direction… A direction even better than one I could have come up with on my own.
And it usually seems that the more I pay attention, and follow these nudges, however they come, the faster and clearer destiny or… a calling perhaps? seems to (trying to avoid using the word manifest here…) come into being…
and continues to evolve.
Well, I would be abandoning my pattern of posting without using at least one question…
What does this all mean? (Not sure…)
What could it mean?
Can we know?
Can we listen and have it help us anyway?
s?????????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 28th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
More general questions to anyone reading these posts:
Regarding the genocides in our own backyard…
What are our options in helping these situations?
Is being conscious, and acknowledging the situation verbally/publically doing anything to help it?
Is it selfish to focus upon one’s own life, and to ignore these genocides that we can see and hear (and which, for multiple reasons, may be very DIFFICULT for any one of us to do individually do anything concretely, physically to stop them…)
Does learning more about thinking independently help to stem the tide – perhaps in the future?
Does living a happy, fulfilled life yourself, actually assist in any way – as selfish as that initially sounds? Does it perhaps model (teaching in a way that not much else often can?)
a different goal that isn’t based upon power over others?
If Dr. Bacon had originally understood Dr. Wayne Dyer as having said “Spiritual energy is the energy of abundance,” as opposed to “Spirititual energy is the energy of abundance – what does that even mean?” would any of us have anything to post about now?
Shhhhhhhh…. Dr. Bacon
S???????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 28th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
PS the key words in the last sentence of above post being:
“spiritual” versus…
“spirititual”
from somebody who occasionally needs some spell-checking help
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
You’re an idiot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 30th, 2007 at 8:47 am
You’re all idiots, or why would you be on here in the first place? Go get a freakin’ life!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
No, you’re an idiot! No you are! No you! You! [DB Blugs his ears and closes his eyes and tries really hard not to touch or taste anything.]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 1st, 2007 at 12:18 am
D.B., I’m just liking you more and more
(No wonder you snagged yourself such a lovely bride!)
My initial reaction when I read above posts was: ‘Well, some spiritual qualities – such as compassion, forgiveness etc., have come fairly easily to me – but man have I blown it in the area of detachment lately.’ (Embarrassingly, regretfully so). Thus I thought, ‘perhaps life is just tossing me a nice opportunity to strengthen a pretty weak detachment muscle.’
Anyway, playful humor is always great though (fun, and probably a sign of detachment too?)
Something I’d like to share with everyone. I think it might be important.
May need to wait, (well, one never knows when the time will present itself), a bit? until I can post it – because I’ll want to spend more than five or ten minutes on this one. Like I said, think it’s important.
Until then (however soon the chance arrises…)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 1st, 2007 at 8:07 am
Good Grief! Jenine Wilcox, you seem to be having some difficulty with the philosophical and intellectual content of some of the postings on this blog. (BTW, how much time did you spend reading them, “get a life”?) However, I may be able to help with that. I returned last night from my grandson’s 5th birthday party and still have the “temporary” pirate stuck to the middle of my forehead which refuses to wash off, so perhaps I can be of some help in communicating on a level you can comprehend.
“Oh, Yeah? Well, you play baseball like a girl!”
Shhhhh… how’s that for a little detached humor?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 1st, 2007 at 10:22 am
Shh…Hope you have recovered. What can be said about #596 that isn’t obvious. But of course I would have had a similar reaction in your place. Jodee…terrific 600th comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 1st, 2007 at 10:43 am
P.S. I know it’s a serious, intellectual blog. But I miss JQP, Zero, Frog, … and (of course) HavAgr8Day. And the others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Hello Shhhhh,
do you see any viable options for ending conflicts around the world?
I do agree with Wayne Dyer when he talks about ‘tribe’ mentality and how difficult it can be to be free of family and social constraints. Getting away from one’s own government is virutally impossible (it is easier to leave family than Big Brother Govt).
I believe there is a way to live in this world, with the happiness and joy you mention as contributing to a good and fulfilling life.
If you can do this, it really is wonderful.
love,
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:21 pm
“You’re all idiots, or why would you be on here in the first place? Go get a freakin’ life!!!”
I started a response to the above but realized that any response is a waste of time and effort. It doesn’t deserve a response. It was designed to shift our attention from serious discussion and it succeeded.
If you notice some people chose to respond to the above prank post more readily than to the discussion that was going on prior.
Dave Bacon: How come in most of your replies you choose to show a childish attitude? I think I know why but would like to hear your reasons. You never participate in the discussions or reveal your thoughts. I would be interested in hearing what a quantum pontiff of your caliber thinks about the issues us mortals are bouncing around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Kate,
I do – but of course, I’m the pie-eyed optimist who has the “the universe is friendly” view of the world.
I haven’t heard Wayne Dyer speak of the tribe mentality, but I believe I understand the concept.
I truly believe that the more one builds bridges of communication, and friendship – with others from other cultures, that the individual’s “tribe” begins to expand. For me, we really are all fish in one pond; one tribe (until we find life on other planets, and then perhaps become one universe; one tribe
).
I had the great fortune of growing up in a very diverse, but very safe, neighborhood. Many of my friend’s families spoke different languages at home. At that time – in elementary school, the tribes were more: parents and (oh no, un-uh, we do not want to go to bed!) kids.
I grew up – from elementary through high school, maintaining almost a dozen friendships (four which are still going strong decades later). Each of us in the kid tribe were all initiated into some sort of religious education (even when the parent tribe’s motivation seemed to be more that they were supposed to do this as good parents – as opposed to that they themselves were very religious). So whether one of us was off to the Mosk, or to Temple, or to Church – we experienced it as all the same.
And our values of how to be a good friend; not talking behind each other’s back, being there when another was down – the basic golden rule – were there too.
When one experiences their initial tribe as being whatever kids they resonate with – and those kids range the gamut of ethnicity/culture etc. – it’s pretty impossible to unwind the tape and all of a sudden look at those individuals as strangers or enemies.
And so – I was lucky in that from the day that I began speaking and crawling and walking – my tribe was pretty inclusive – and the human experiences we shared all so very similar. Same hat; different color sometimes.
In addition, many of the people I knew in elementary school began travelling far and wide once they began their professional careers, etc.
One travels frequently to the middle east (and will do a fulbright scholarship there next year).
Another travels frequently to south america and works on the behalf of immigrant farm-worker healthcare here in the United States.
ETC.
This is meant to be a fairly quick post because of today’s commitments – but the question deserves so much more.
But there are a few things that come to mind:
You know – all that fear that was generated over a nice elderly gentleman -and none of it true…)
communication almost always turns the boogie man into a neighbor. (Did anyone watch Home Alone – the original?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Oh no……
I had like six more paragraphs on the above post.
Too long to re-type right now.
But they were by far the BEST ones!
Would like to add more later…
Would love to read more from others on the subject.
And Jodee, super cute pirate image and post
And Hana…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Kate,
thanks for posing that question.
I think there’s lots we all can do – on a thought/spiritual level, bridge-building level, and in even more concrete ways.
Have a lovely Tuesday everyone!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I think Zero posted at the same time I did
– thus our paragraphs merged, and some of mine fluttered away…
Good to see you Zero!
(Maybe Quantum Pontiff’s are merely mortal too?)
Happy tuesday…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Dave Bacon: How come in most of your replies you choose to show a childish attitude? I think I know why but would like to hear your reasons
Because I’m actually a ten year old kid and this whole website is a spoof!
More seriously, JohnQPublic came pretty close to nailing what I would have said most of the time. And I enjoy listening to your discussion more than I would enjoy jumping in and trying to force my opinion down other throats. Generally I respond to comments that are seriously silly (like calling someone an idiot) or come from a very narrow point of view.
Even more seriously, I’ve been very grumpy this summer
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
DB- Hmmm. Sounds like a bowel problem. Maybe you need a cleanse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Dave – I think this audience wouldn’t take offense even if you did try to force your opinions. So feel free to participate. The more controversial the opinions, the more interesting the discussion.
(broken telephone)
You never know, it may help your bowel problem
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
At last the subject of tribes is finally up here. I was wondering if we’d get around to that. It seems to me that Dyer blurs the line between true tribalism and herd mentality. I think there is a fine, but distinct difference between the two. Tribalism can turn into herd mentality, among other things, but it needn’t always be the case.
Tribal traits are more than just physical/physiological. There are personality tendencies that run with a particular line of DNA. We see this in animals all the time, particularly in dog breeding. A breeder will breed for not only physical appearance, but temperament.
My best friend has Celtic ancestry and I have some of that with German mixed in. (Oi!) She has an uncanny way of instantly learning how to deal with and communicate with people just by knowing their tribal background, usually by their last name if they’re male or maiden name if female. It has seldom failed her. When approaching a new neighbor (male), with whom there was a conflict brewing, whose last name was Campbell, she knew right away she’d have to “kick his ass” (verbally) before he kicked hers, ie., she’d have to fight to earn his respect if she was going to get anywhere with him. She was right on and when she told him how she knew how to deal with him, he laughed and had to admit she had hit the nail on the head. His wife really howled. They are now the best of neighbors. They understand each other and give each other their due.
She also has close neighborly relationships with her African-American and Hispanic neighbors – understanding their ancestral tribal attitudes and giving them their due. I realize this sounds like stereotyping, but stereotypes didn’t just materialize out of thin air. They came from truth. The harm comes when distortion combines with disrespect. Then -poof- you have racism. (See? the truth comes first, then the lie.)
Differences should be noted and respected. I see that as the opposite of racism. It’s ridiculous to pretend they don’t exist. It isn’t necessary to become one big homogenous race or village or to be “color blind”. It’s only necessary to respect the differences in tribes and personal boundaries. You don’t have to “escape” from your tribe. In fact, I think it’s healthy and beneficial to embrace the inherent qualities of your tribe. Complimenting each others strengths and weaknesses seems a much better approach than trying to work toward a homogenized sameness.
Escaping from the government is an entirely different matter, especially since they own you by virtue of the registered births and numbers they convinced your parents and grandparents were necessary. Think I’m crazy? Then ask yourself why military casualty and mortality is referred to as “collateral damage.” Collateral is something you put up as security against debt. Figure it out. There are bigger forces at work here than most people realize or are willing to admit. Just wait till they try to microchip everyone from birth and tell you it’s for your own safety/good. Sure, no more faces on milk cartons, but also no more freedom to move about. As long as people continue to expect government to take care of them and provide for them, crap like that has a real chance of happening, and the slavery will only get worse, regardless of which tribe you’re come from.
But, you gotta’ keep your sense of humor…Zer0. I love your willingness to be open to new ideas and thoughts and to rearrange your perseptions, but you really have to lighten up sometimes. Maybe try putting a temporary tattoo in the middle of your forehead and then go about your day as if nothing is amiss. Works wonders.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Conflicts are a very profitable business for some.
If it wasn’t for the politicians, governments, and other power entities that create and use conflicts for their agendas, most people would have found a peaceful co-existence a long time ago.
We need to change those who are behind the curtain, those who are in control of governments and societies.
We need to open the minds of the people to realize that conflicts are artificial in nature and they have a hidden agenda pursued by some entity.
What conflict can I have with someone half way around the world who has the same human feelings and the same everyday problems no matter what name they give to the entity of their worship.
There is no profit in peace for the greedy few.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Jodee, thanks for the constructive criticism, I’ll keep that in mind
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Kate (et al)
I think that having one human tribe doesn’t mean that we have to dismiss/forget the rich culture/heritage and traditions of our individual ancestors. Yet, does individual heritage have to define one’s tribe? Can we keep specific traditions/culture while embracing the greater family of humanity as a whole as our tribe? In my experience, the answer is yes.
I love travelling – it expands me like nothing else. I love learning (hands in up to my elbows) about other cultures, etc. Yet, I don’t think differences in culture define/or mean that anybody is from another tribe…
I often see other aspects of myself (sometimes previously unknown) in the eyes of somebody from a distinctly different land and culture.
Maybe because many of my youngest experiences involved a wide variety of travel – I sort of scooped up all the different, smiling faces – and accents – as being part of my one big multi-faceted tribe.
Regarding the animal note: At the age of ten, I used to love counting up all of the domestic animal friends that shared our household (we were always saving, befriending, and assisting some wild ones as well). Funny thing is: although the one Australian shepherd we shared our home with did occasionally try to herd a human or rabbit or bird, everyone really did get a long quite well. (Including the parrots, red-belly newts, dogs, cats, rabbits, etc.) And the red-belly newt never felt it had to grow feathers. Well, if it did, it never told me about it
Anyway, is it possible to celebrate cultural differences, while also celebrating the greater human similarities?
It has always seemed to me, that deep down, it is almost always people’s fear/insecurities/pain etc. that cause division. Perhaps that is where some of the greatest benefits of Dyer’s teachings can be found. (Although I am quite limited in my knowledge of them.)
Fear almost always seems to cause projection. If someone is afraid of something strange/unknown – it is easy to ascribe and project all of the negative/disowned parts of oneself/one’s culture, etc. Seems like history is ripe in scapegoating. But what does that ever get us, besides more of the same?
Different thoughts, different energy = the potential for different outcomes.
In terms of what you said Kate about living a fulfilling, joyful life – I believe that there is not much else one can offer that can come close to that in value in terms of teaching. Modeling can be the best teacher of all.
Anyway, I do think, in addition, that when one has the finances, connections, media opportunities, etc. to help victims of any specific genocide – that one’s life will only benefit from utilizing those as well to provide concrete assistance. Brutality doesn’t seem to do well with exposure and truth. And when one person, one child… is helped, who knows what sort of ripples that can create… (And the value of two souls themselves is more than enough I think.)
A last thought: while I do often think that “big” government has much to do with the violence that plagues much of earth – I also see the truth that wars, genocides, slavery – goes back to the beginning of what we can trace as human history.
Should we give up on it then?
Well, I of course don’t think so.
The more we understand the power (and powerful energy) of love, thought, forgiveness, (and – swallowing hard
detachment – the more we can
hopefully approach things in a different way perhaps.
I once worked with an abandoned, impoverished minority child – who a facility had nicknamed “killer” due to his non-stop kicking and biting toward those who tried to get near him.
, and the whole beautiful world can be our oyster…
The first thing I did was to ask him to give him a different name – one that he would be proud to live up to… The second, was to see him as the frightened (of course), vulnerable child he was – and to create as much of a secure, responsive environment as possible for him. He sure didn’t seem like a killer by the end of the time that I spend in the facility (and I’m NOT taking the credit for that – so many good people). It’s just, sometimes – what goes in, comes out. And perhaps that’s also where Dyer’s teachers can also be helpful. When what has gone in is enough to cause despair, Dyer comes a long to remind of that we are not the name/identity/projection that anyone else has placed on us. That we are love
Lastly – to Zero, I’m a very visual person – and I loved your example of a metal sheet bringing convex and concave qualities into being at the same time. Really struck with me. Energetically though, sort of fun to play with. On an interpersonal level – sometimes it seems so often that when one person yells “you’re a … big, ummm, snot ball!” that that can start a response cycle that almost never ends. In the above example, it almost seemed like – the metal sheet was flat, someone lobbed an insult (concave) – and the whole thing returned to a flat sheet by
- turning the other cheek?
-humor?
-detachment?
Probably lots of other ways to think of it. But very glad that we’re using some of this blog to discuss the many hurting, suffering individuals around the world right now… at this moment.
A wish for a safe, belly-fed, good-night’s sleep to you all…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 am
Shhhhh,
I did see Home Alone – it was quite funny!
I think what you express about diversity is the
‘secret’ to this amazing life in the universe. Without it, there would be no richness or context to relate to in meaningful ways.
Yours was a wonderful upbringing. Would that we all from a young age have had apppreciation of diversity nurtured in us – by family and society.
It has been a process for me, a peeling of layers to find that my joy arises in newness, springing forth from a foundation I am thankful for, but the webs of entanglement had to loosen, and in some places cut.
If I have anything of value to offer this world, it is this – a clear mind, uncluttered, and open to learning and sharing – and a strong sense of self, not dictated by passing emotions and changing thoughts. Qualities that I cultivate which I offer back to each one reading here – acceptance, enthusiasm, and honest sharing of my own perspective with full allowance for different points of view and opinions.
It is nice to be here!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Shhhhh…, I’m glad that the example was helpful. The principle works universally (just my opinion) but sometimes it’s hard to see or recognize. It’s the way the universe (the whole universe not just the “visible” one) operates. No action can go without a reaction. No concave without a convex. If we don’t see or comprehend it doesn’t mean that there was no reaction. The accountants of the universe will make sure that the books balance at the end of the day. All dept will be payed back one way or the other. But the good thing is that the universe does not charge interest, because it is not in it for profit. You can not add to the universe or take away from the universe. You can borrow, use, then return. Now imagine a society that operated the way the universe operates. You get what you give, no more no less. Those who give the most would receive the most and vise versa. There will not be any banks or a way to store anything. What ever you want whenever you want is available for borrowing, using, then returning. The worth of anyone is based on their contribution. It does not matter what they contribute. Any deed that benefits the whole is counted as a positive contribution. So you contribute at whatever you are good at.
Since there is no means of taking something and keeping it, then there is no fear of losing it. No reason to steal something if you can access it whenever you want. What are the implications?
Sorry to wonder off. I just feel that we should understand and learn from the universe and model our society to operate and function like the universe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Regarding irrelevant comments: I try, but I am not sure what the current, common theme is. JQP and HavAgr8day dissappeared into the void of the Quantum Soup (though not in the same soup I guess). Jodee and Zero disagree about God. Shhhhh and Kate are discussing Je ne sais quoui. So unless Dr. D. comes in to teach us something online about applied quantum theory (I mean it seriously), I may even write another poem .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Kate, well phrased last paragraph. I agree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Dr. D. save us, before hana writes another poem
Just kidding hana
I’m eager to learn about the latest in applied quantum theory also as it relates to my view of the universe.
Come on Dave, the audience is waiting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Tom Bearden is one of the best known crackpots in the field of “free energy”, the modern incarnation of the age-old futile quest for perpetual motion. Bearden has published an amazing amount of utter nonsense.
He is surrounded by a loyal band of cheering sycophants who go out of their way to threaten and silence their critics. This is rather ironic given their constant complaints that a vast conspiracy has successfully suppressed (and continues to suppress) all information about “free energy” because what it would do to established energy interests.
Bearden’s so-called “Motionless Electromagnetic Generator” is nothing more than a transformer with a permanent magnet that was claimed to “draw free energy from the vacuum”, i.e, to produce more power at the secondary than is fed to its primary. The only problem, of course, is that it doesn’t work — despite the claims of a few of Bearden’s followers who don’t know how to use their lab instruments.
Some warning signs of crackpot or fraudulent inventions
1. Extreme obsession with secrecy
* fear of getting “ripped off”
* refuses or delays patent application (“won’t protect me”)
* refuses independent testing even with black-box protocols
* some sincerely self-deluded inventors are exception
2. Works alone, refuses technical help
* sometimes, like-minded crackpots do join forces
3. Seeks publicity through mass media
* avoids peer-reviewed journals, professional conferences
4. Invokes vast conspiracies to explain lack of progress
* Oil companies, utilities, Arabs desperately want to kill my free energy machine
5. The claimed invention implies violations of firmly established mathematical or physical laws
* the inventor may or may not directly admit this, or even understand that he’s implying it
* the inventor may claim that existing laws are correct but widely “misunderstood”; naturally, only he understands them correctly
6. Claims discovery of new physical theories, or comprehensive “theories of everything”
* or asserts existing, accepted theories are “wrong”
* all without proof
7. An unusually long gestation period without commercialization
* frequently promises working device “in a few months”
* deadlines always missed
8. Lack of formal education in relevant field
* especially when combined with frequent potshots at the “establishment”
* but sometimes outsiders do make significant contributions
9. Pursuit of funding from unconventional sources
* individuals, especially the elderly with large life savings
* church groups, especially fundamentalist
* wealthy people lacking education in subject field
* funding sources with in-house expertise are carefully avoided (e.g. large technology corporations and hi-tech VCs)
10. Repeated pattern of touting one design and then abandoning it in favor of a new one when critics show it cannot work (“bait and switch”)
11. Appeals to religion or “higher power”
* especially when seeking funding from religious people or groups
* God thinks we humans “deserve” this invention, etc.
12. Heavy marketing emphasis on wonderful applications of device, carefully avoiding question of whether the device actually works
* Free energy source would eliminate global warming, pollution, end oil wars
I hope no one actually falls for that as..ole.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Apropos notions, like Manifestation (remember Wayne Dyer?), Energy, “Energy” and, maybe, even Quantum Mechanics, you may want to have some (weekend) fun reading Deepak Chopra`s invitation to one of his (blog-) opponents, to meet in NY and witness spoon-bending , live. And the rest of the comments that follow:
http://www.intentblog.com/
oct.4
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4th, 2007 at 6:33 am
correction re the above link:
Oct.3.
and the title (approx.): “My last comment to Skeptisch”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Sorry, I didn’t realize what this site was about. I came across the Bearden video link here through a search and I didn’t really read the posts. But I see now it’s not about him. My mistake.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Hana,
just wanted to make sure that you knew:
I thought your poem was EXQUISITE.
More always welcome…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Oh…
and I think the topic of tribes that Kate and I were tappin’ about was one that fits in with some of Dyer’s thoughts… ?
Not sure if I personally can go anywhere with the concepts of energy, attraction, manifestation, etc. AT THIS MOMENT – without losing my occasionally tenuous grasp on detachment
.
Something none of us here like/would like to see happen…
hugs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I’m quite a bit like HavAgr8Day – part of me is here, while another part of me (the more essential me) is off developing my detachment and time management skills
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
And doin’ some other FUN creative stuff…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
oh no, one more.
Kate, I thought what you wrote was clear and beautiful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Brad, I posted the link that you referred to.
Since you are judging Bearden, which one of the 12 points are you accusing him on? I couldn’t see any of them stick.
I have read many of his works and know some of his credentials. What are your credentials that give you the authority or the qualification to make the judgment that you make?
Did you build a machine and test it with negative results or you are just repeating what others are saying?
Since you know about Bearden you probably also know about John Bedini and his work. Are you claiming that he also doesn’t know how to use his lab instruments? You should go and look up his credentials before you make any claims.
I would not call myself their follower but I wouldn’t discredit them either unless I had solid evidence to support it.
If you have anything concrete I would like to read it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Hi|Shhhhh…(and everybody).Don’t know about the tribal idea, but… Detachment…yes, right, of course. Tomorrow, tomorrow I`ll practice that.
And yes, you do remind me of HavAgr8Day (she does use more of those little golden smileys. Wish I had them in my software.)
When you come to the “Middle East” – let us know.
And thanks.
Happy October to all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
For Hana:
Oh what a tangled web we weave…
I thought there’d be a natural transition for this – way later (when maybe the other journal blog mentioned was ready to roll?)
However, due to Hana’s comments, felt like I needed to post this now…
During the time I stopped posting as HavAgr8Day – and started posting as Shhhhh…
and posted as HavAgr8Day…
)
.
– in an open-handed sort of way. But like a Mama Lion protective of them).
(Wondering, I know a lot of people who don’t speak about the Tao, so perhaps I know a lot of Taoists…? Wonder if the Tao teaches those sort of posts? He really was only reflecting back a bit of reality…) STILL.
here I am. It’s ME, HavAgr8Day, Shhhh…… 
.
when employing much more of my brain’s left hemisphere. 
I had a few realizations:
1. I hadn’t initially meant to find DB’s blog, and when I stumbled upon it – I just reacted as my natural self (which is usually playing happily in the right hemisphere of my brain
2. After posting, I was very interested – and, without any thought to the big (time-oriented) picture, posted a bit more (especially after having Wayne Dyer’s book grab me (metaphorically speaking) at Barnes and Noble and sort of energetically force me to write a couple of posts about it…
3. Anyway, I completely lost my composure TWICE (lack of detachment, anyone??) – and truthfully, really didn’t think I had anything more to say about my personal experiences in terms of that I not only believe in attraction/synchronicity – but I simply experience on a daily basis.
4. I did need a break.
5. I wasn’t up to any more of what Joe G. described as the negative energy in the room (my own included, I really wasn’t staying detached enough to stay engaged at a decent level)
6. And I did want to get back to, as Joe G. said, “living my truth”.
7. And so, I did
8. But I kept thinking, you know, the things I get to experience in my own life are really wonderful. Helpful.
Extraordinary in ways. And then I’d think – wouldn’t it be nice to offer it to others (or at least reinforce the concept) if I could do it without a. taking more than a few minutes out of my day at the most and b. not having any blowback caused by my own lack of detachment? (Sort of a tall order for me, as I’m pretty attached to the things that bring me joy
9. And so, I thought… what if I just practiced a bit, seeing if I could post quickly, in a detached sort of way…
10. For my own sense of integrity, I always thought I’d connect the dots for everyone/anyone who cared…
but maybe after I had some better skill (at having enough time management to live my truth, and still post occasionally)
11. My TWO greatest sadnesses about it: I hated letting Joe G. down – after he came and rescued me from my own self (entanglement). And so – if Joe G. ever comes back – not to worry. The decision to post is a conscious one.
12. I. really. didn’t. think. I. could. ever. handle. reading. Gary. writing. five. or. six. posts. about. me. saying. good-bye. EVER. AGAIN.
13. And so…
14. Shhhhh is actually me, HavAgr8Day – but mostly, Shhhh is the left hemisphere of HavAgr8Day’s brain –
wearing a detachment jacket.
15. Anyway, I write this for Hana’s sake.
16. I sort of thought that most of the regulars on the site would be connected to Dave B. somehow – and (not that he has the time to care) but – usually on blogs, even when somebody posts under a different name – it still comes up as the same computer. Thus, I sort of thought that most of the regulars might know this was me – trying to be a more sedate me – so as to communicate things a bit better. (Anyway, that was sort of where my name initially came from – shhhh, don’t tell until I get the hang of this and can handle things better.)
17. Feels sort of icky writing this.
18. However, the desire was to try to continue something positive – in a TIME MANAGED way (too hard when I was doing it spontaneously and reacting to everything/anything.
19. Anyway,
20. Now, the only way I’ll ever be able to continue posting though, is if I can do so in a detached way – and in a way that is helpful to the information I’d like to share.
21. I hope Joe G. doesn’t feel disappointed in me
22. I hope Jodee won’t ask me if I’m ADHD again – seeing that I can write slightly more co-herently (although dully
23. Love to you all.
24. Synchronicities – still happening – EVERYDAY. Shiny with wonder. Can’t explain it. It just is.
Although my posts to JQP about running nakid through the woods seemed a bit – shocking (even to me) –
I think running/swimming, jumping on a trampoline – anything that gets you out of your head (and into your SELF) really does help to align you with all that is around you. Unlocks you from the prison cell of your head in a way. And doing any of the above NAKID (not naked, that sounds more adultish, yes?) WOULD probably help.
Hope some of you will understand. Hope Joe G. will never feel disappointed.
Hope Gary will “Shhhh…”
Happy October Hana (!)
xox, me
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 4th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
See, all the smileys?
(And I hope Kate – who seems to just shine with integrity, doesn’t feel saddened by the latest info either.)
As if anyone really cares this much about an anonymous poster!!
xox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 5th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Hi ZerO,
this caught my eye – from your comment on Oct. 3
“You can not add to the universe or take away from the universe. You can borrow, use, then return.”
Whatever is molded into substance – from the building blocks found on earth – will indeed change form and dissolve over time, including our physical bodies (oh, but not today!)
The issue of ‘consciousness’ which Wayne Dyer does write about (as does Deepak Chopra) – is a source of great debate – as to whether ‘it’ (consciousness) survives the death of forms.
And if indeed consciousness (which some call God) creates tangible forms from (seeming) nothingness, and lives on after the created forms have dissolved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 5th, 2007 at 12:38 am
HavAgr8Day…Shhhhh,
I am so glad you have returned here! I was hoping you would.
It has been a calypso evening for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl7aM3nCqC0
enjoy!
love from
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 5th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Dear HavAshOday. Doesn’t it feel nice to be back to your old self again. Wasn’t that sretching the definition of Detachment a bit. Isn`t that real competition for Deepak et al at IB.(I’m getting into the SHH mode of asking questions). Isn’t that a great idea for your new blog (suspense story).
Now, if that doesnt bring Jodee back from the fields, and ZerO from that guy who invented only God knows what; and DB from Japan, or from his back yard fixing some mysterious quantum device –then I don’t know what will.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 5th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Geez! I miss three days and now I can hardly keep up. A couple things did catch my eye, though. Sorry, I don’t have time to look back and see who submitted them. I cut and pasted as I read.
“And when one person, one child… is helped, who knows what sort of ripples that can create… (And the value of two souls themselves is more than enough I think.)” My first inner response to that was, “Why aim so low?” When I worked in the public school system, I would occasionally hear from a few self-dellusioned teachers that if they could just reach ONE child it would all be worth it. And I would always think, “OMG!If I spent an entire career teaching and only reached one child, I would consider myself a failure!” That’s not to take away from the value of the one child, only that there are so many needy, that if my best effort only reached one, I must have missed my calling. The law of averages is the only thing that produced such limited success, because after so much time and effort, nobody could utterly fail. (Throw enough mud on the wall, some of it is bound to stick.)
The second thing that caught my eye was, “When what has gone in is enough to cause despair, Dyer comes a long to remind of that we are not the name/identity/projection that anyone else has placed on us.” This is absolutely NOT true. In fact, the example sited after this statement proved it is not true. When a positive, life-affirming attitude/name was projected on the the same “killer” child, he transformed and conformed to that new projection. And the same is true of Dyer’s own example. He disproved his own point. He simple shifted his daughter’s need for approval and identity from her teacher to himself. So, let’s consider another possibility here. We all embody all aspects of the Creator, whoever that is, both good and bad, altruistic and selfish, etc. In picture terms, we embody two dogs: a good dog and a bad dog. Which ever one gets fed, or fed the most/best, is the one that prevails at any given time. Some days, the bad dog prevails and some days the good dog prevails. Maybe those days are even years, but the principle is the same. I think everyone is capable of killing given the “right” input/set of circumstances that bring out that capability. ZerO more or less demonstrated this in a much earlier post in relation to his little girl. Fortunately, though, most people’s trigger points seem to be tightly confined and generally speaking, don’t get triggered.
Children are simply less inhibited about what we all do and need. We all define ourselves through the eyes of others and we all need acceptance to live happy lives. The trick is finding the best people through whom to find our identity. Who feeds your good dog the best? I see this as one of the most integral parts of human connectedness. Nobody is an island, as the old quote goes.
Also, I’m sure how you all are defining “tribe”. I tend to have a very narrow definition in comparison. It has to do with DNA. I think the “tribe” that most of you are talking about, I would really refer to as my universe. It is much more inclusive. But let’s face it, even though I have a dog in my universe, I will never go out in my field, lift my leg, and pee on a bush. That’s never going to be part of my “culture.”
ZerO, I appreciate your dealing with Brad. That guy was really starting to tick me off. He comes across as a very tightly wound academic snob whose creative bone has been pretty much hacked off. And BTW, the reason most inventors and visionaries won’t patent their stuff is because once you do, it becomes public info and with only minor alterations, it can be more or less “stolen”. Sometimes this works as a benefit in that improvements are made, which can benefit a free market, but still, the inventor has the right to his invention, so I don’t begrudge him his due. (The lengthy court battle between Polaroid and Kodak over instant camera technology would be a prime example of all those points.) I wonder- would Brad criticize Einstein for his lack of “formal education”? The same formal education that places it’s graduates squarely in a particular box of thought, largely financed by “men behind the curtain”?
HavAgr8Day…Shhhh, you sound very guilt-ridden over your deception. I do appreciate your taking the time, however, to write a bit more coherently. It is the thoughtful courteous thing to do. I think I like the left half of your brain better than the right, probably because it’s easier for me to understand. And don’t be so touchy about the ADHD thing. My original question was only an attempt to try to understand why I couldn’t follow most of what you were writing. My daughter is ADHD/ADD and she is one of the most delightful creative people I know. She is certainly a constant source of entertainment – in a good way. She has developed a healthy ability to laugh at herself, because frankly, she’s just funny. She’s pregnant now and gets nauseous very easily even well into term. (We’ve figured out it’s motion-sickness. She’s never liked roller coasters, so now it all makes sense.) Anyway, she and her husband drove down to meet me at a midway point en route to So. Calif. She, of course got car sick and had to throw up. As she pulls her head out of the plastic bag, she notices the new shopping center sign along the highway and without missing a beat, says, “Oooo! Is that new Target?” Laughing, her husband replies, “You have thrown up way too many times!”
So, if you will permit me one more suggestion: detached humor is more or less an out-of-body experience. You mentally stand back and watch/listen to yourself and to those with whom you come in contact. It’s much easier then to see the humor in almost everything and most everyone, because it’s not personal anymore. I tend to look at my life at any given moment as a scene in a movie, and most of the time, it’s hysterical, because it’s naturally funny. (As opposed to being contrived funny.) Give it a shot. Maybe it will work for you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 5th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Hi Jodee,
It’s true what you say about laughter and having a sense of playfulness about life’s experiences.
(congrats to you – on the soon birth of a grandchild!)
Have you listened to any of WD live lectures? He does have a great sense of humor and fun at poking at himself.
Leaving the tribe – is not necessarily a physical event (though it could be).
We are all a part of community in some form.
If I could mandate this moment – an end to conflict around the world, many communities/governments (imo) would no longer be a source of conflict and pain.
But …
would that end the inner struggles and suffering we humans seem engaged in
thanks to a mind that can’t be tamed
without effort!
love,
~ Kate
and I agree with your observation about good & bad.
The world of duality offers up
everything under the sun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Well, I returned to a lot of lovely, welcoming folk! Yay!
I was bracing myself for several posts from Gary stating “No, I’m HAVAGR8DAY,” no “It’s Me that’s having a great day!” “No, I’m SHHHHHH!”
Anyway, Jodee, I did enjoy learning how writing from the left hemi helped you to follow my posts better. I think we may have bonded a bit during my little “Shhhhh” siesta.
And, although there are so many good things to respond to, I promised myself that by OUTING myself, I’d still do my best to practice time management. And so, I can’t touch upon so many points that I’d love to – at this moment.
However, I will say one thing (that was sort of killing me over the week-end when I couldn’t write it):
For those who followed any of my posts about
thing that just happened was: was back at that same B&N, and while there, checked again to see how many copies of my friend’s book were stocked (4) 
me purchasing Dyer’s INSPIRATION book:
-initially getting Dyers’s Inspiration book from B&N and posting about some of the info in it
-later writing a post clarifying that I hadn’t actually gone to B&N to get Dyer’s book – rather, I had gone there to get a friend’s book – and Dyer’s INSPIRATION book just happened to be staring at me from the shelf right above it (I also noted notice if there were any of his other books on that shelf…)
-WELL, the MOST RECENT
AND looked just above to see if any of Dyer’s books were where the INSPIRATION book had been.
NOPE. Looked at the author’s last names…
Dyer’s books weren’t even on the same wall !
Found them a couple of minutes later, on a wall that was perpendicular to the wall my friend’s books were on. Not only were there a bunch Dyer’s books in this other spot, but one of his books (I believe the newest one) had it’s cover facing out.
HMMMMM…….
Hmmmm????
Funny how the one book that I had been interested in (the INSPRIRATION one – because that was the PB special of his that I had seen and loved) was the one book that had wandered it’s way over to tuck itself in right next to my friend’s book – somewhere around the time I went to look for it (and had just stumbled my way upon this site).
Okay.
Think my internal alarm bell just went off.
. Perhaps I’ll try posting as a blended form of me. It won’t be nearly as dull as SOME of SHHHH’s posts were, but perhaps not as playful as some of HavAGr8Day’s were.
But it’s good to be back. And forth. (Lil play on words there
PS. Loved the way Hana combined the two names:
HavAshoDay.
xox (And I will be checking out Kate’s link sometime soon)
+ one more o
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 5th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
PS Jodee, your daughter does sound delightful (!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Jodee, I don’t think that this guy is even academic. This is one of those so called skeptics that go around and badmouth things that they don’t have the capacity to comprehend. The “Motionless Electromagnetic Generator” that he referred to is patented and disclosed. But to understand how it works you have to unlearn the electronics that they taught you in school and learn this new way of looking at electricity and magnetism. Only then it will make sense because there are other forms of “energy” that come into play. It’s like going to an electrician and asking him to design a hydraulic system. He will design something but it will not function the way a system designed by a hydraulics specialist would. To design a proper system the electrician has to learn about fluids and fluid flow. If he can’t or doesn’t want to, he will go around and badmouth the hydraulics specialist and his circuit because he can’t achieve the same results with his deficient circuit.
I keep an open mind regarding over unity COP (Coefficient Of Performance) machines. Theoretically I have been convinced that it is possible. Any heat pump is already an over unity machine. It provides more heat energy than the operator pays for to run the machine. So the energy above what he pays for is “free energy” supplied by the environment around the machine. What Bearden, Bedini, and others have come up with are similar to heat pumps. They capture and convert another form of “electrical” energy with their circuits that is all around us.
“Free Energy” and “Perpetual Motion” are very misused terms these days. They are mainly used to discredit or make fun of someone who proposes a novel way of capturing energy that the universe gives freely if you know how to take it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I’ve seen what I think is the latest of Dyer’s “live” broadcasts. And while it’s true that he does employ humor, I don’t feel as free to laugh as much as I might otherwise, because I believe he uses it as a convenient ploy to keep the audience off track – to distract from his disjointed and nonsensical dogma. I was much too attentive to the actual content of his “sermon” to allow my mind to rest and accept he said. I had read some of his book before I watched and since I’m very visual, seeing his words in black and white, it was much easier for me to see the whole picture and bottom line it. I simply didn’t like what I saw at the bottom line. Not that he doesn’t have any of the truth or say things that are at least anecdotally true, but none of it is really original with him. It’s age old wisdom that he’s used as seasoning for his pretzel logic profit producing crusade. So, I was jaded before I watched the PBS broadcast. Bottom line, I find his humor, (while it would be funny if it were just related over cocktails or something,) to be manipulative, disingenuous, and self-serving. That kind of spoils the fun for me when I perceive that he only uses it as a “sales” tool.
And thanks, ShavAgr8Day. I find my daughter rather delightful, too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 6th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Gr OlO its Sunday –Reads as “Growl it’s Sunday tomorrow”, back to work, end of 10-day holiday. Can’t find any humor there (would you?).
Cheers to your posts, Exits and Entries (sp?), Personas and Persons, Right and Left.
Oh God, if I only had a little yellow smiley.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 6th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Hana, I have a favorite slogan for situations like yours. It’s more like resigned humor, but here goes:
“No time off goes unpunished.”
Spoken like a true type A.
P.S. I don’t have the smiley face either, but when I type a colon, hyphen, and right parenthisis without spaces, it gets converted to a smiley face when the post comes up. Maybe that will work for you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 7th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Right. Thanks Jodee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 7th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I followed the instructions and , sinchronistically or not, the computer IGNORED it! I`ll try again in a minute, but I guess it wouldn’t do it to a type A. Here goes:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 7th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Oh well. Goes well with getting bitten by ferocious ants (migrated here lately from South America via travellers), and seeing a PORCUPINE (!!!) while walking my dog — not in some remote desert area, but right between the site of the government offices, the museum of science, and the university. Couldn`t believe my eyes.
And work wasn`t great either. I think I’ll go to bed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 7th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Hey Girlie Girl Hana
,
maybe your computer couldn’t see the smiley faces that appeared in your posts?
They’re there… golden and shiny
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 7th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Okay,
was a few miles from home, thinking about what I wanted to post – and for some reason, all of these examples with ANIMALS came up:
- one involving mice in the Carribean
- one involving something so beautiful and extraordinary (post to follow)
- and one involving a huge Buck that careened across a mountain road and ALMOST merged with me and my car…
Anyway, I kept thinking about the Buck example – because it poked more fun at myself and the subject (while still being a potential example of synchronicity)…
Then I came home and saw Hana’s post
.
Okay – about that Buck…
One night, as I was driving a long a mountain road, (a road I’ve driven realistically thousands of times without ever even SEEING an antlered buck)- I was thinking about a friend – and worrying about him.
I was deeply concerned that the thing he’d just done – a MAJOR decision/act in his life – was reckless and perhaps done out of some sort of reactive pain… and I was specifically thinking ‘I hope with all my heart that this act wasn’t as rash as it seems – because if it was, what panic might he be feeling right now…’
And just as I was thinking that – this huge antlered Buck bolted out of the dark brush and across the road, with a look of such blind terror on his face – as if he were running from something (and not even seeming to see me or my car)…
I was at once so stunned, AND so relieved, (that he and I had both survived – I had heard something – his hooves? knock against the car as he passed) – that I had to do what I always have to do in those sort of surreal situations (Check if in fact I was awake: Are you dreaming? No. This is lucid? Yes. Awake? Yep. Okay then, keep driving… carefully…)
And then, when my heart stopped beating so fast, I thought: ‘What the heck is THAT supposed to mean? I hope that isn’t how my friend is feeling right now… It’s too painful to even imagine that…’
And then I told myself DON’T THINK ABOUT IT.
Actually, I told myself, DON’T THINK.
And then I told myself ‘this is a BIG SIGN that you are supposed to go home, get into comfy pjs, and then go straight to bed and watch some really bad television’. (Something I’d normally protect myself from
.
Anyway, I did exactly that.
And everything felt all better.
(Until I recently learned that my friend may have been feeling exactly the way that I feared – at exactly that time.)
Next post… the extraordinary, beautiful one
…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 7th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Several days before I had the experience with the Buck, I had this experience:
My general situation – had been processing what had felt like a trauma/major (unexpected) loss in my life for a couple of weeks. Had felt numb. Couldn’t write creatively at all. Tried to respond to a friend who had emailed me offering to lend some quiet companionship and a caring shoulder – and couldn’t even compose an email back to him – well, not one that I could send…
And during this numb stage, I kept thinking, just do what you need to do next and let the healing process take place…
and I stopped at a restaurant for dinner (a Marie Callenders – in the parking lot of a strip mall to be exact – across the street from lots of others stores, etc.) and had a filling, silent dinner (oh no, I’m re-experiencing the sadness as I write this…), and then walked out into the dark parking lot (not really seeing anything around me) – and got into my car. As I began to back out of the parking space – a Sarah McGlaughlin (sp?) song (I had her cd in the cd player
) – came on – and I was absolutely feeling soothed by her words “In the arms of an angel… you will find some comfort there…”
WHEN I saw a flutter of white wings (too numb to even do the ‘Am I dreaming’ check…) – and stopped the car and looked out of my open window -
at a pure, white owl that was flying – circling just above my car, and another person – a young man (I now noticed) who still wore his restaurant apron, and sat on a bike looking up at the owl as well too – And the words of Sarah’s song kept playing as I watched the pure white owl, against the dark night sky, flying lower and closer -
and FINALLY, I thought – is this real? Is this really happening? ‘WAIT,’ I thought, as this owl (who was almost at window level now), flapped it’s feathered white wings… ‘It must be hunting. That’s what it’s doing. There must be some mouse or something on the ground between that young man and I…’
And at the moment that I thought that, the owl flew up… and up… and over the restaurant, and landed atop a tall pine tree in the median of the road.
I was still sort of swallowing, and breathing
-
when I looked over to the young man on the bike -
and he looked at me, and said “GOOD, YES?” and I said “YES…”
And then I drove home feeling as if I’d been blessed.
And prayed before I went to bed that I would dream about something that would help me to believe that I could write again…
)
(and I imagined perhaps a dream where someone just said to me “Oh, and by the way, when you wake up, you’ll be able to write again.”
And instead… I woke up just after 3 in the morning, having dreamt three short stories (in manuscript, word for word form) – and grabbed some paper and wrote down two of them (confession, in the dream, I had co-written the third one with a best friend, and I had this guilt that sort of blocked me from being able to remember it very well
)
And then I fell back asleep, and woke up again just after 4 am, with the title and a synopsis of a fourth. (Wrote that down too – still love that title
And then when I really woke up for the day, I knew everything was going to be okay.
Life would continue.
All was not lost.
And when I wrote a writing friend (who experiences a ton of these things herself) about this – I wrote: ‘And then the owl flew up to the top of this tall pine tree… and perched there – like a star on the top of a tree… or a … oh my gosh, this is funny… but like an angel…’
Thus ends, the post about an extraordinarily beautiful creature (oops, I actually typed angel, and had to delete it) – that still feels hauntingly beautiful when I think of it right now.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 7th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
For those of you who are thinking (not feeling, or sensing, but probably THINKING
) “Well, those are poetic stories that are lovely, but you know, I don’t want to hurt her feelings, but there’s nothing CONCRETE about anything there…”
See, I know some of you so well, don’t I?
I say… absolutely.
And that’s okay.
We’re just getting our toes wet (because if I jumped into the deep end, we’d all poing around with much too much internal resistance…).
So why not start with the lovely and poetic?
(Although, I must say – both of those experiences are held HIGHLY SACRED by me. But they needn’t be by anyone else. SHHHHhhhh
Do spare me harsh words though if you can. I am simply sharing. And you can simply skip my posts if you’d like…)
But if I can post whenever I have a few minutes, I’ll post little, and maybe some big, things…
And eventually, there might get to be a bigger picture/view…
A pretty beautiful one I might add.
Shhhh…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 7th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
So quiet here tonight. Like swimming in a stream…
Last nite’s post:
While parents were visiting, we went walking along their favorite beach out here, and I did what I always do – collect shells – until I have too many too carry
.
And so I put the shells down on the sand, and send “we can pick them up on our walk back…”
and my Dad shook his head and said “someone’s going to take them…”
And I drew a circle around them, and wrote ‘Please Save’ in the sand.
And when we returned – all of the shells were there, plus several more that someone, or someones, had added (including a sand dollar which I rarely find out here).
And I smiled at my Dad, and he raised his eyebrows
And then I wrote ‘THANK YOU’ in the sand…
and we scooped up all of the shells and returned to the car.
Of course, my favorite ones from that walk will always be the gifted ones…
Night, night.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 8th, 2007 at 1:06 am
hello…
to HavAgr8Shhhh: Hi…I knew it was you…I like you…I haven’t been commenting lately because frankly, it’s been sounding really smart around here, and I’m not that smart…what’s that proverb, again…”Better for people to think you’re a dumbass than to open your keyboard and remove all doubt…”
Anyway, Frank And I have been eating pizza, drinking Corona, and reading the blogs…and although I haven’t been writing, I’ve been reading…glad you’re back…so is Frank…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 8th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Dear Hav and all. I liked the stories SO much, especially the owl story.
Tonite I was reminded of my porcupine because the dog was making menacing sounds at something (lurking?) in the shadows. So I decided to go back to the car and go home. When—
out of nowhere the most beautiful young, Arabian horse walked by, all alone in a happy stride.
So now everything is back to:
Frog— Quaaa. What is smartness for. Better simplicity (somebody, somewhere said Simplicity is Sacred.) and truthfulness, like in your post.
Jodee:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 8th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Zer0, where are you? I’m drowning in right brains here.
So, how does one tell the difference between a crackpot and a true prophet or visionary? (re: Brad’s unenlightened post.) I suppose that often it’s time that tells. Visionaries are remembered and often immortalized – eventually. Their detractors, however, slip into oblivion. Brad………………Brad who?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I always love reading Hana’s posts.
The porcupine; the young arabian horse.
(Figs in a late summer’s salad…)
Frog – I’d hoped you were still here. And FRANK.
Yay. And of course, I think what you wrote after that was funny and humble, and completely not true – in terms of intelligence – Of course.
Jodee… the one common denominater (sp???) of all of my friends – is genuineness. We all goof up, (I actually really do think that’s the process of learning though), we all have blind spots… but when a person is genuine and authentic, I can really appreciate them. Feel so many people who have posted on here (if not all?) really have been… but you and I had that little initial wipe-out
. Thus, I wanted to tell you -
I appreciate your genuineness a ton. And I appreciate the delicacy of your last post!
Where is that Zero? While trying to sign on last night, the site froze on one of his entries that ended in essentially “And have you eaten anything like this today?” (Whole, unprocessed foods)
And I thought: “Umm, no. And THANK YOU!”
And I followed the link that Kate posted.
I guess you don’t have to run through the woods nakId after all (to get out of your head and into your whole self) – maybe sometimes you can see just see images like that…
(Merci..)
Gearing up now for a few really busy days…
xox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 8th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Jodee, I thought you are having fun with all the happy stories and smiley faces. I’m afraid I can’t contribute to the right brain image exchange going on lately. For me everything around me just is. I don’t have the need to describe it, quantize it, evaluate it, label it, save it, relive it, etc….
I experience it, enjoy it, and let go of it making room for the next moment’s gift. This is just my way of experiencing life. It is not the right way or a better way than anybody else’s. I don’t even make the attempt to remember anything. If it sticks then there is a purpose for it in the future. I avoid “telling what happened”. My wife always complains about this. If I tell what happened it will be my experience and interpretation of the events and not what actually took place. Based on my experience no two people at the same event tell the same story. They don’t experience the same thing and even if they did, what they describe is not exactly what they experience. What goes in is not what comes out. Some things are forgotten, other things are exaggerated, some things are added, etc..
So what comes out is not what “happened” but the filtered and processed version of what the observer thought has happened.
Is it possible to know the “truth” of the event?
I think the event (the action/reaction pair) is the truth. Most of the time we experience not the action but the reaction, our reaction to the action. We cannot experience the reality outside of our “self”. What we experience is our reactions to the outside stimulus. We experience with our brain. The light that falls on the retina creates an impulse that the brain interprets as color. So what you think is a red ball is just the reflected wavelength that bounces off of the ball and gets into your “brain”. You don’t see the ball, you see the reaction of the ball to the incident light, and your brain reacts to that reaction.
The same is true with the other senses (sensors). So we are unable to “see” the reality outside of our self to know the “truth”. Reality and truth are very subjective therefore.
Maybe when we die and the brain shuts down we are able to finally know the reality and the truth
What would that truth be?
I think it would be that we come from the nothingness of the universe and go back into the nothingness, and in between we are something. We are what we want to make of it. That freedom we have, the rest is up to us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 8th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
HavAgr8Day…Shhhh… This may be more serious than you like, but I’m starting to feel badly for you. And, as you have surmised, I genuinely mean that. You are proving, perhaps unwittingly, what I posted earlier: That we all formulate our identities primarily through the eyes of others from childhood on. The key is which others’ eyes we choose.
Last month you denied having dreamt manuscripts in any sort of literal sense. You got a bit defensive over that assertion, which, as it turns out, seems to have been accurate. (I would suggest that rather than it being some cosmic metaphysical occurrence, it was merely your “super computer” de-fragging itself, as it were.)
While you suggest that Dr. Dyer comes along to rescue us from ourselves by telling us that we aren’t what others thinks of us, you continue to fly in the face of that pretext.
You felt guilty for using an alter-alias. And now you just want to “share”, but don’t want any harsh criticisms. If you believe Dr. Dyer’s statement to be true, then why should you care what a bunch of strangers think of what you write or how you come up with it or what name you use doing it? You seem very insecure about yourself and I can definitely see the RCC influence in your recent posts – very heavy into the Babylonian Mystery Religion (animal spirits being a major motif,) even if you don’t recognize it as that. (Actually, the guilt was the biggest give-away.) It seems to me that you need rescuing from the church whose subliminal superstitious influences have enslaved your self-image and the way you interpret the world around you.
On the one hand, you’d probably like to known as a creative free-spirit. On the other hand, you fear it makes you look like a kook and that you won’t be taken seriously. Well, the fact is, kooks generally aren’t taken seriously, but if that’s what you want to be, then why should you care? You seem to have boxed yourself into a conundrum you can’t get out of and still have your self-esteem in tact.
If you were secure about who you are, you’d be able to step outside yourself and consider whether the opinion a stranger has of you is valid and whether or not you’ve merely surrounded yourself by people who don’t challenge you. If it’s not a valid assessment, then so what if someone you don’t even know doesn’t like you? Why should you care what THEY think of you? It only matters what people you love and respect think of you. They’re the ones that feed your good dog. (Hopefully you’ve chosen to love and respect people who actually do feed the good dog.) The rest are white noise you should be able to tune out. It’s not like we’re using our public names here. I doubt your book sales will be effected. (I guarantee you Dr. Dyer cares a great deal what the book-buying public thinks of him!) Don’t take this in a negative way, but get over yourself. The only thing we know for sure is that you definitely don’t want to thought of as someone with ADHD.
Will the real HavAgr8Day please stand up?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 8th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Hi Jodee,
You have gathered quite a list of qualities you attribute to HavAgr8Day…Shhhh.
ZerO,
I agree when you say that reality is a moment to moment experience! And yet – it’s easy for one to get caught up in the process of describing, labeling, analyzing – such is the ability of the mind and emotions. We humans do get carried away! This not necessarily a bad thing, and in fact, it’s not possible to eliminate completely.
Better -imo- is to watch the way the mind works, and enjoy the capacity of being present to this experience.
HavAgr8Day…Shhhh,
I am glad you like the song by John Denver and his tribute to Jacques Cousteau. I am drawn to nature and the beauty it reveals.
love,
~ Kate
p.s.
Dave Bacon-
did you EVER expect your post on Wayne Dyer to stimulate so much discussion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 8th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Right. I mean Left. The eternal Schism between Material and Non-., etc.
Before phasing-out into more appropriate realms, (and hopefully meeting Hav. and Kate and others there), I want to say I HAD A GOOD TIME here. Things I especially remember: JPQ`s picture, his remark about teenage girls wanting to console each other, his bonhomie behind the scenes; Jodee being such an axis of reason and confidence,; discussions about God, ZerO’s last post, Kate`s ~, and HavAgr8Day`s asking John G. if he was married (that was SO cute. Something I would never dare to do.) And DB`s straightforward and funny style.
me, my horse and my porcupine.
AND my little yellow
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 9th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Kate, my impressions about HaveAgr8Day are the culmination of her own words and my many years of having lived in her culture. I am well aware of the effect a superficial environment can have on a person. I feel fortunate to have escaped its clutches. It’s like escaping from a cult. When you’re in it, you’re dedicated to it. Once you’ve left it, you realize how imprisoned and enslaved you were. Everywhere I’ve gone outside of that spiritually oppressive pressure zone, people have told me they think of So. Calif. as a place where you can be whatever you want to be – do whatever you want to do. They’re so mistaken. I think maybe they only feel that way because there’s an establishment there that is so different from their own, that dictates behaviors and acceptance of behaviors they would never consider doing themselves.
So. Cal. is like the artificial social order of age segregated schools – exploded. You can only be weird in certain perimeters – the ones set by those who are “in” with the top dog of “in” crowds: Hollywood. You’re only free to be who you want to be if you’re rich enough to thumb your nose at the status quo, or if you’ve managed to intrigue them to the point where you amuse them. Even then, if you step too far outside the lines, someone with even more wealth will reign you in. Think about it. Hollywood is the mecca of Scientology – one of the most oppressive religions there is. It’s entire approach to new converts is “proving” to them that there’s something wrong with them that only Scientology can fix. It is the religion of the Hollywood elite. People who feel like they don’t fit in anywhere else are drawn there and if they stay and become “successful” within that “cult” they merely end up conforming to the established non-conformity. So. Cal. is a giant oxymoron.
There’s probably varying degrees of established cultural limits on acceptability everywhere you go in the states, but some regions are less oppressive in the way that So. Cal. is. Where I am now, I can be of modest means and be as “weird” as I want to be – nobody takes notice or tries to push me down. It’s a more live and let live society. If I want to have my babies in water, I can – and without fear of being brought up on child neglect charges. (Not that I’m having anymore babies. That’s my daughters’ deal now – and in water, too!) If I want to use alternative remedies, I can without being arrested or labeled as a mental case, (which, of course, requires medication.) I can find a naturopath in every phone book. I can practice no religion or any religion as long as it doesn’t involve animal or human sacrifices, and no one cares. (Like I said, there are limits everywhere, but a lot fewer here. I can live with these.)
So, when HavAgr8Day writes that she lives in Santa Monica and loves it, that tells me a lot. Been there, done that, seen what happens to people. So sad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 9th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Zer0, I didn’t see your post until after I posted to Kate. It struck me as very right brain. I thought you were coming to my rescue!
Just kidding. Yes, I was having some fun for a while, but I seem to have an inordinate need for hard intellectual exchange. Probably a throwback response to having lived in So. Cal. for so many years where nearly everything is grounded in the superficial, and therefore, not grounded at all. I was born there. My mom was drugged up and I was dragged out. No midwives there to offer a more peaceful entrance into the outside world. I didn’t escape until I was 35. That’s a long time to be held down and force fed.
So, what exactly does your wife complain about? That you won’t remember certain things or that you won’t relate them? We moms love talking about our kids and the things they’ve done. It’s one way that we stay bonded to them and remind ourselves that the self-sacrifice was not only worth it, it was joyful. That bonding impulse is almost involuntary. It’s like it’s unnatural NOT to have it or act on it. For many of us mommies, talking about our kids is just one of many ways to strengthen or maintain our bond with them – by relating about them. Men, on the other hand, while they may dearly love their children, as you obviously do, seem to have more detachment. A male friend of mine and father of three boys with whom he was close, once told me he was jealous of the bond his boys had with his wife, their mother. He knew he would never understand it or have a bond like that.
I don’t know that I understand it either. I just know it exists. Perhaps it stems from moms pouring so much of themselves into their kids. They’re heavily invested. They will instinctively give up their own lives for their babies without even thinking. Maybe it has something to do with growing that little human inside their bodies for 9 months. Then there’s the breast-feeding – the intermediate “external womb” between the internal womb and totally separate existence. There’s definitely something very electrical about all that – also very hormonal, as you have probably witnessed. Hormones are electrical responses (yes, I know – some say chemical, but since I don’t believe in the particle theory, it’s electrical as far as I can tell,) and they are very powerful electrical responses. Probably with magnetic elements, now that I really think about it. Hmmm. I’ll have to do some more research on that one.
I can see some elements of truth in your ideas about truth, but even a person’s view of what happened will still have some objectiveness to it. It’s rarely ONLY subjective. Uh, oh. I just veered into gray area. Reality isn’t really subjective – only our view of it is. The closer we can align our view to reality, the closer we come to truth.
That old question about the tree falling the forest and no one there to hear it comes to mind. When sound is defined as waves of vibration striking an ear drum, then the answer is: no sound. But if one defines sound as the waves themselves, generated by the action of the tree falling, then the answer is: yes, there is sound. The falling tree still produces the wave vibrations regardless of the presence of a receptor or the working ability of a receptor. Perception and/or definition don’t change the reality of the action and the subsequent reaction. The color red, as we have interpreted it, has a consistent vibration. We could have called it blue, but that wouldn’t change it’s vibration. If a person is color-blind and believes he sees a color other than red, the label we have given to that particular vibration, it is because his receptors respond differently to that vibration than do the vast majority of receptors which have been used to establish the label for that vibration. Still, the vibration is the constant. It doesn’t change in response to the receptor. The receptor responds to it and will either interpret it accurately, or misinterpret it. In other words, interpretation doesn’t change the truth of it. It either aligns with it or it doesn’t to varying degrees.
So, what is truth? I think we’re back to “what is the nature of electricity?” Perhaps when we know that, we will know what truth is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
It’s such a busy few days.
But I had this sense, that everyone would be left in so much limbo – and trying to process my last posts (sort of like up above).
Zero – I really liked your last post.
And guys, don’t be worried about my reaction. Actually – not much.
The only conundrum that I feel at the moment is that I wish I could post something a bit more comprehensive – and there isn’t time right now.
But I will tonight.
For me.
PS Jodee, I don’t live in Santa Monica. (Maybe because I said I lived a mile away from the Santa Monica mountains?) I live about 45 minutes north of there. A very quiet, pretty community really. And the only other place that I’ve lived in California is Pasadena
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 9th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
My mistake HADS, but you’re still in the pressure zone. It’s fingers are long and penetrating, like a cancer stealing as many souls as it can; calling good that which is self-destructive and attempting to make quivering cowards and mindless minions out of its patrons.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 9th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Zer0, HAG8D…S loves your last post! See? I told you it was right brain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 9th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Jodee, although I agree with you in general regarding bonding between parents and children, I believe the amount and quality of time spent plays a big role.
If the father works all day and can only spend a few hours a day with the child then the bond may not be as tight as with the mother who spends most of the day with the child seeing to their every need. So there is an association between mommy and needs being taken care of. I’m sure if the roles were reversed and daddy stayed home and mommy was working all day there would be a possibility of a stronger bond with the father. But there are other forms and levels of bonding as the child grows and is not as dependent on mommy.
My wife complains about me not reporting to her everything that happens in her absence. If I was at a gathering she wants to know in detail who said what, how they said it, when they said it, who was wearing what, when they arrived and left, etc.. I feel like I’m in interrogation. I just answer a few of her questions (whatever I could remember) then tell her that I don’t remember anything more because it isn’t important to me to remember all those details. We are complete opposites. I’ll leave it at that.
What is reality? Is the red ball or the tree in the forest real? If we experience everything with our brain then our reality is fabricated by our brain. If we are not able to directly experience anything outside of the self then we can only speculate about the reality outside of the self. The more sensors can send info to the brain the better speculation the brain can make. But since we only have a limited number of sensors the speculation is going to be very rough. All the new instruments that we make are only an extension of the brain. The data still has to be processed by the brain and incorporated into the existing fabricated reality.
There is no solid reality. The things that appear solid are mostly empty and in a continuous change and exchange. The form looks static but there is a continuous flow of energy through the form. Like a waterfall, the water molecules that make up the waterfall are continuously replaced by new molecules. We tend to think of reality as a frozen waterfall, static and solid.
Can we trust the brain to depict an accurate picture of reality? The brain is as good as the “software” that drives it. The brain is hardwired. The software can be continuously updated. We are given that option. The reality that one experiences depends on their willingness and capacity to upgrade their software. There are people who are running on version 1.0 of the software and there are those who have upgraded to version 10. Since there is no way to directly measure reality outside of self then it is a virtual reality. Most people can’t deal with that virtual reality so for them the fabricated reality is the only reality that they can relate to.
Got to go now.
To be continued.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 9th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
HAG8D, thanks, glad you saw something useful there.
Jodee, I don’t believe in the separation of left and right brains. For me there is only one brain and it can express itself in any way possible. I’m surprised that you bought into the right/left (either/or, black/white) mentality for the brain. It’s both. It’s a gray matter after all
As far as localities: I live in So.Cal, sort of in the center of it. I see it all, the good, the bad, and the ugly. How do you survive in the melting pot? It all depends on the software you are running on, how you process the influx of information and how you choose to react.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 9th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Oh, looks like I was the lucky one to post #666
Yes, I am the beast
Now everyone knows it…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 9th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
A few various thoughts:
Definitely don’t feel in the pressure zone.
ONE of the nice things that came from all of these posts for me was actually Gary. He helped my already realization of a pattern there in my posts; one that reflected my ambivelence – and also, surpringly, parts of my self I don’t see as well.
Last night, driving home, Lao tze (woah, spelling
– was being talked about on the radio (having recently been expoxed to much – and boom, was immediately talking about the shadow side of all of us – the side that we disown – that we don’t get a chance to see as well.
Well, I was thinking, if nothing else, I can’t take something from this and use if for my own personal growth.
Next thing Lao Tze discussion went on to was: the spiritual value of the number 40. Was thinking “Never heard that before…” when I looked up – and there was a sign post flashing he speed that I was driving. 40… Just fun.
Anyway…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 9th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I am really tuckered out. LONG day.
So if my posts have typos, it’s more a result of being a bit blurry eyes. I’ll try though
.
____________________
I think one of the tough things on blogs like this, is that, it really can be difficult to have the time available to post something worthwhile when juggling, as we all are – so many different demands. And then, it’s really easy for mis-interpretations/etc. to be made due to the sort of the nature of the beast (ZERO, you are definitely not that
.
I may just to be too wiped tonight (up at 5:00 am , and it’s about… ? 9:00 pm now.) to write what I was hoping. Maybe I’ll try one post, and then, if it is too tuckered out – I’ll try again, tomorrow?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 9th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
YES, TOO TIRED. Couple posts above: I wrote, “Well, I was thinking, if nothing else, I CAN’T take something from this and use it for my own personal growth.”
Funny, I sincerely feel – I CAN take something from this…NOT a freudian slip
. Really, just too sleepy.
So I’ll end with this and give it another shot tomorrow:
I do think critical/independent thinking needs to be learned and sort of integrated into one’s self – before one moves on to the more organic, artistic, etc. ways of enjoying the world.
Or perhaps, that’s the way it has worked best for me. Thus, when I make those poetic leaps (which really nourish my writing), it doesn’t feel very scary. The bottom line is always The Golden Rule, being a good, responsible person living a good life, and then… when those sort of lovely poetic moments come along…
being able to just go… oooohh. “Good, Yes?” “Yes.”
I’ll do better tomorrow. I hope
Until friday, I’m sort of UP to my ears in it at the moment thought…
xox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 9th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I love you all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 6:40 am
I love YOU all too Wayne
(You should skip my last post
– cuz, I think the above pretty much is the important stuff 
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 7:11 am
The one that Wayne should skip (will just sound like blah, blah…blah
In terms of brains: I’m with you Zero: we have one matter (da grey stuff
. (Liked that comment)
I think for me, I probably started referring to the r/l hemi because that’s something I’m really familiar with in my NON AS creative profession – working, in part, with people who have have brain damage due to things like strokes, gun shots, cerbral palsy, car accidents… Anyway, if a person has a stroke one night, and wakes up the next morning, suddenly finding out that although they can still THINK clearly, but that whenever they go to speak, it sounds like gobbly gook – it’s nice to be able to explain to them (and family) that that is just a sign that a relatively specific area of the brain has been (hopefully only) temporarily damaged – and that as the brain swelling goes down (that can be a part of the healing process, depending), some of the symptoms will probably resolve on their own, and some of them our amazing brain will just find ways to compensate for it, and to in essence, re-wire itself around it. A tiny bit more blah, blah, blah… if someone has a stroke on the right side of their brain, in general, it’s the left side of the body that is affected. If the frontal lobe and/or limbic area is affected, that can be helpful to let the person know too. That way, if s/he is suddenly feeling a crazy range of feelings, blue, crying, lashing out, or whatever – they can understand better what is going on – feel hopefull, have a context for things that help the rest of them (their whole self) feel a bit soothed…
Anyway, that’s sort of where all of that talk for me started with.
And I know for sure that the I draw on skills like executive functioning/organzing (located more in certain area of brain) ALOT MORE when I’m working as a consultant – then when I’m working as a writer
Oooops – as a CREATIVE WRITER. And then, should really write… playing as a creative writer
.
xox
Trying to get this in before I’m headin’ off for day – so not so many typos
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 8:11 am
About the synchronistic, creative, WONDER stuff:
the stuff that’s put some real bedazzle into my life:
I can’t re-invent the wheel here, that’s for sure.
already – that Wayne Dyer’s INSPIRATION talk on PBS really captured it all for me – and summed it up really nice for me with his last example of using Van Gogh as an artist in terms of timing… (if you didn’t see that talk, maybe see it so I don’t have to blah, blah, blah it?) 
I really think, as I’ve said a bazillion times (bazillion – creative speak for, ummm, maybe nine or ten?
For me, one of the greatest gifts I’ve ever received – have been all of the remarkable – whatever we want to call it – luck, coincidences, synchronicity, ?? that began to happen went to change my life dramatically about eight years ago – making the decision to truly pursue what pursued me too the most (creative writing – and most often, a very specific genre of it that it is very lovely, uplifting – to me anyway) – it was if the whole world sort of cracked open (poetic speak) and began helping.
Random examples: Almost immediately find myself sitting on a plane next to an editor from a publishing house that I loved (wouldn’t have even known or asked what he did, but he was reviewing a submission).
Again, really early on: meeting a writing friend (who will be a lifetime friend, no getting around it) – who had some interest from an agent – but the story she given him wasn’t receiving any response and the situation was losing steam, and she finally took me up on my URGING to PLEASE send him a different manuscript (my favorite) – and that was the book that began a bidding war for her – and led to almost nine other books being purchased by that, and additional houses in very quick succession (manuscripts purchased before books had even come out). (Anyway, but that’s the way it’s been from the moment the two of us have met – BOTH ways.) (Btw, this friend lives in the midwest).
To mix in an example that Jodee won’t resonate with, but that’s okay: no biggee, think flow and fun…
With same friend, she sent me an email on my birthday this year, saying she kept seeing this butterfly as she was writing it…
And I wrote her back, telling her that when I had opened the door for the first time that birthday morn – this HUGE yellow butterfly (some look almost mechanical to me) was fluttering on the flowers on my front porch (first time there – on patio often, but not on porch
. Happiness. So pretty. And it hung around the flowers – flew around me, and my pup, in a circle – and then sat back on the flowers. Love butterflies – made me reluctant to head off for my pup’s walk (well, you know, finally had to…)
Also, the way I found one of my writing mentors too – complete fluke, yet, SO… I just can’t imagine how life would have been/would be, had this fluke not brought us together.
One last funny one:
I don’t do interview type books or articles – but I’ve always had a dream (for like the last ten years or so) in at one point doing a book of interviews from a certain perspective that I would find (and would hope others would too) really inspiring… (Still sort of need to work up to that one
But the funny part of it: one of the people I’d love to interview for it (in my perfect world) (and besides people like Elie Viesel, Jimmy Carter, etc.) – is a commedian that I think has wonderful, dynamic humor. Okay, the funny and strange coinkidinc:
Was at the local bank several years ago, when this comedian got in line behind me. He’s VERY tall, VERY broad, and was wearing a VERY blue jogging suit (thus, a little hard to notice, even peripherally…
.
Anyway, I certainly wasn’t going to talk to him about the book of interviews concept – because I just didn’t feel it was the time (in my life) or place (for him).
But I believe in encouragement ALOT – and, seeing as he was just behind me, I turned to him, and said (quietly), “you know, I just wanted to tell you that I think your commedy is really original and positive, and I appreciate it.” Anyway, then followed one of the funniest, silliest, goofiest five or ten minutes of any time I’ve spent in a bank…
CONTINUED: this year, I received a phone call, from a woman sounding panicked, and asking for a man’s first name (who does not live here). I kept reassuring her, and telling her that she must have the wrong number.
The following day, I read online that there had been a rumor/big to-do about this particular comedian having died the previous day. In the blurb, they gave the comedian’s real name – and his first name was the name that the woman had called me about the previous night. Me: ‘Could she possibly have been calling for him? Are our phone numbers so close that she could have mis-dialed???… Well, I’ll never know…’
TWO DAYS LATER: I stopped at the local bank – spontaneously on a saturday. I was the only customer in the bank. Just as I was completing my slip, I saw the teller’s eyes twinkle
, and she nodded to the person who was just walking in behind me.
Me: Hey!! I’m done… So I walk up to the teller (the little twinkle in her eyes sort of dimms, just a little) and in the middle of my transaction – I realize I need another form. I turn around – and – this is where to anyone who knows me, I don’t have to say anything. They just shake their head laughing. And then I proceed to tell the rest of the story.
(But to people on blogs who don’t – the person behind me was of course the comedian??!!)
Anyway, we then proceeded to have one of our second very hillarious interactions (after I did one of the ‘am I awake, or am I asleep…’ checks…)
Anyway, this post is long enough. But just a few examples of how much everything around me seems to have decided to help once I leapt toward what my heart truly wanted to do the most.
What does it mean? Not sure. Will it probably always stay this way? I sure would love it – but I’d KNOW that I have no control over it. Only, I sure do LOVE it.
And I’m guessing that so many people – somewhere, if not here
– have had similar experiences.
(By the way, all of the above doesn’t cancel out that I still experienced challenges, as well as having some people that I’ve loved pass over, pass away… during the last period of years as well. It’s been a real life… But one I’ve been so thankful for.)
But like I said, wasn’t thinking I was going to re-invent the wheel with just one morning post
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Last one, about the psychic mentions…
Since I’ve never been driven to try to become psychic, when things happen, they don’t normally scare me. Especially because they are generally positive/neutral/ or just silly
(My sister-in-law used to call me that name of the psychic on Saturday Night Live that used to have all the really unimportant psychic revelations like: “I see you… you are going to… spill your coffee on yourself this morning…”
Anyway, just a more real example of what I’ve meant when I’ve referred to it:
The person I referred to during the antlered buck experience (the one I was worrying about) is someone I’ve known since we’ve been kids (older kids, not elementary) – and have always had some sort of really strong connection with.
Anyway: psychic (silly) example: A couple of years ago, while lots was going on in his life, I began to have these – they felt like little bolts of lighting zipping through me. About (ta-da, the silly thing) – him sending me emails. ????
I would be at a charity I work for, most often doing an evaluation or talking with a client – and all of a sudden I’d get zapped ‘Michael just sent you an email.’ And I’d sort of shake my head and go ‘okay,’, and get back to work.
Anyway, after going home and finding out that there’d always be an email from him on those days, I started to change the ways I was doing things.
Whenever I’d get zapped, I’d ask the client, “do you mind if I write down the time?” and I also told one of my good friends at the charity about it. So then, when I was done with the eval or whatever, I’d go grab my friend, and we’d check on his office computer.
The funny thing: there was always a THREE MINUTE delay. I would write down 2:35 – and the email would say 2:32. My friend at the charity (sucha funny guy) had a whole set of jokes for it and why. But finally, I thought, maybe I’m not picking up on receiving his email, but my friend’s thoughts after he sends it?
Anyway, that particular thing really seemed to stop happening almost completely once things smoothed out in his life – at least for quite a while (the smoothing out). Haven’t had any zaps
for quite a while…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Some of my favorite things and memories
Hana’s POEM (see, your writing did come into my life)
DB – in general (DB, I “see” you becoming less grumpy over the years; if in fact you were ever
Gary’s reflecting-lesson to me
Joe Q – and all the really valid concerns he had over the underlying concepts (CONCEPTS, not people
– regarding some of the things talked about here – and his desire to talk about them with care. AND (with Hana here – seeing his picture with his wife and granddaughter).
KATE (simple enough?
Nez’s moments – brilliant
Frog’s heart
(Wow did I want a Corona the other day 
Zero – (think you have a really wide-open, exploring mind. Enjoyed reading your posts a lot Zero. {And your one on nutrition was a great reminder for me when I get too busy})
Jodee – I think you have a phenomenal sense of humor. Loved your post on your daughter (wanted to become her friend), and your post on the forehead stamp. Even though, for what ever reason, there seemed to be more ? misinterpretations – than I think real communication between us, I still think you’re really genuine. And a GOOD, independent thinking, SMART woman.
JOE G, his WIFE, and all of the sweet help/they tried to give me as I made my way
Wa tsu
Wayne’s last post.
And everyone else here. (Really)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Above should have said JohnPQ #4 – see, now rushing to head off to work day
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 9:11 am
*** Maybe scroll up seven posts (oiy – seven!)
and read the one just above first.
I think that is the one that everybody is maybe supposed to see first.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 9:13 am
***Most
***
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 11:30 am
HAG8D…Shhhh…
I feel like I’m reading your diary or your personal blog when I read most of your posts. If you could, please spend time to formulate your thoughts in a concise form and present it in a logical fashion with some structure. If you are tired and sleepy and want to record your thoughts, please put them on a piece of paper instead of this blog.
Thank you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Zero,
those entries were my bon voyage.
Bon voyage to you.
And to all.
And lots of good wishes for whatever anyone wishes for…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
PS However, if anyone I’ve posted with ever wants to stop by for a barbecue
– I give D.B. permission to give my email to anyone of you above (if he has the time 
.
(Hana mentioned posted something about she, I and Kate connecting in some other way? … always welcome as well!)
Again, good wishes for all that each of you wish!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Kewl! Can I come? I’ll bring the bong!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
“Kewl! Can I come? I’ll bring the bong!”
For that barbecue you’ll need a bong, some mescalin, some Ravi Shankar music and a few hours listening to subliminal messages from Ayn Rand tapes. Then you’ll a grand time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
“Then you’ll a grand time.” Typo. Should have been “have a grand time”.
I’ve gotta cut back on the brown acid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 10th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Let me review what I take away from here:
1.God is a giant electron.
2.The government is running a concentration camp in my backyard but I’m too distracted by the economists who created Jesus to notice the dead bodies being carried off in my wheel barrel.
3.Agent Smith is real and we should take the red pill to target “the Shepard.”
4.White owls construct stories by circling waiters still in their aprons.
5.DNA differs in humans to the same degree as various dog breeds, so humans can and should be bred for temperament. (And just when I thought eugenics was dead.)
6.Everything is a conspiracy. (Including this post, this forum, and the University of Washington. Which reminds me, I need to meet with Alan Greenspan later to talk about my next post.)
7.There are people who can actually suggest topics that I can’t see with my telescope. (??)
8.Gary is a chauvinist pig for snickering.
9.Zer0 is just an experience processing machine who finds no value in recall. (??)
10. The universe organized itself such that 6 X 10^-9 of the earthly population driving 40 mph occurred at almost the precise moment as radio waves modulated to the word “forty.” (Now that is extraordinary planning.)
11.Receding to a child-like state is superior to being a thinking adult.
12.You’re only a real thinker if no one else thinks so.
13.As long as you have good intentions it doesn’t matter what you sell to people. Or the corollary, emotional reactions are superior to analysis and for $300 I can give that to you on paper and a DVD.
14.Someone keeps forgetting her Ritalin.
15.Dyer can overpower my argumentative ways with love. (He better not dare touch me.)
16.“Unconsciousness” (not subconsciousness) is a superior state for writing.
17.And finally: Southern California, the part of the state responsible for Pete Wilson, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Darryl Issa (49th district congressman, dead center So Cal., who organized a recall of a democratic incumbent governor), proposition 187 (which was approved by 72% in Los Angeles alone), proposition 13, not to mention sixteen straight years of Republican governors, is largely ruled by the liberal elite and their inescapable scientologist views. (I wondered why L. Ron Hubbard was on our stamps.)
Yes, I am the wiser now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 5:39 am
LOL, JQP. I thank the great electron that common sense (and humor) still exist out there somewhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 8:14 am
JQP’s #17 is ancient history.
Right and left brains are not separate, but perform separate functions. Women have more connections between the two halves than men (generally speaking), which is probably why they tend to be more relational, which is why, Zer0, your wife wants to know all the details and you don’t really give a hoot about them.Quality time with kids is always bonding, but the example I sighted was from a stay at home dad and a working mom, so go figure. And who do most athletes always say hi to on camera? MOM. It is evident, however, that Tiger Woods and Michael Jordon may have been closer to Dad. There are always exceptions.
Funny stuff, JQP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 8:57 am
JohnQPublic, I think that list contains all of the workings of a great Philip K. Dick novel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Dr. Bacon (DB),
I regretfully inform you that I retract the post in which I give you permission to give out my email address.
(Can’t have a bunch of discontents bringing drugs into my yard.
)
**The real reason: My attorney informed me that that hadn’t been such a great idea to begin with…
Thanks.
PS And for all the creative writers out there – scratch JQP’s number #16 – use everything: the conscious, the unconscious, AND the subconscious.
Now, back to yoru regularly scheduled programming.
Take it away JQP……..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 11:59 am
For the worriers: “Now bAck to YOUR regularly scheduled programming…”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Oh, don’t get your sari in a twist. I was only teasing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
JQP, good to see you back.
My hard drive is shot.
I hope you are staying.
Is everything OK with you? You disappeared without warning. I was wondering all this time if you were OK or not.
Good entrance though (clap, clap, clap…)
I’m going to process this experience first with my right brain then with my left brain, followed by my intestines, then send it down my colon, and then ….. ,but I can’t guaranty that I’ll remember it tomorrow
Jodee, if you asked me what exactly (in detail, all 17 points) did JQP post about above, I would tell you that I don’t remember and I would refer you to his post so you could read it first hand. I read his post, I understood what he wrote in my own way and made conclusions based on my understanding of it. To me it no longer matters what exact words he used, how many points he had and how many question marks he used on item #9.
If I attempt to describe to you JQP’s post I would be misinforming you, because even if I get 90% of it correctly the 10% left out could contain something critical that would give you a different impression about the whole thing. It is not that the details don’t matter to me, it is that the details are where the devil is. That is why I would rather refer people to the source of the information than become a contaminated source of the original information. For the same reason I don’t take anything that anybody tells me as facts. If I need accurate info I go to the source if possible. If it’s not possible then I treat the info as an opinion. Since there are people who don’t differentiate between facts and opinion I am hesitant to tell anything to anyone because they may treat my opinions as facts and be misguided.
I hope it is clear to everyone here that my posts are only my opinions and I don’t claim that they are anything more than that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Jodee, are you saying that the brain (left or right) is where the thought or the precursor of thought originates? Before you answer check this out and think about it.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Mysteries-of-the-Mind/Living-without-a-Brain.html
I think the brain is just an input/output device. The actual thoughts are created somewhere else. Can a thought be measured with any instrument? If you measure something, is it the action of the thought (the thought itself) or the reaction of something to the thought?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Can a thought be measured with any instrument?
Yes. We measure thoughts all the time. And every day we get better and better at measuring them. Forcing thoughts of thoughts hiding away from instruments into a smaller and smaller location.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
JQP,
I was glad to see you back too – but I was hoping you were going to regale us with all of the wonderful charity work you had done while you were away.
Or, you know, the non-nakId runnin’ you had been doin’.
Alas, I don’t have a sari – but i think they’re awfully PERTY. (DON’T worry – meant to write PERTY! Whew.)
I really did have a DREAM: that all of us would have a barbeque somewhere, somehow. Too many interesting souls on this board.
But, I’m listenin’ to my attorney’s advice re: my email address and home. Never steered me wrong before
.
(Plus, you know, I’d HAVE to include Wayne Dyer {INSPIRATION tape guys…) at that bbq – and you’d get YOUR sari all in a twist. Which, you know, might help you loosen up a bit in the end
.
Now, I’m takin’ the advice I gave to you, and am headin’ off to: do some work at a charity, sit in a meadow (prefer them to woods when it’s an either/or), and get then come home and get some good lovin’ – all in one day.
Busy day.
Busy week.
Busy year.
Glad you read the posts.
I can see some wing buds sproutin’ on your back
Ta-ta……..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Explaining sometimes takes the fun out of things. But I’ll do it anyway because I don’t want to hurt anyone. My list is the group’s words and partial ideas twisted around just a bit. Words were deliberately dropped, added or juxtaposed to make a partial idea seem nonsensical. Or I was poking fun at some the some of the personas that developed a life of their own in here. None of the items accurately reflect the point the originator was trying to make at the time of the post. The question marks denote when something struck me as really unusual. For example, by dropping the word “scientific” in #7, the “telescope” is no longer a metaphor, which is how you intended it, and becomes literal and reallying making no sense at all.
I really did not intend to start pulling the talk in a new way. I saw a number of posts from others listing what they learned, and I put my own twist on it. And I certainly did not intend for HAGDS to become fearful, consult an attorney (geesh) and retract an invitation that someone may have wanted to take her up on.
So, that’s that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Dave, let me know if you find one cornered in your office. I’ll bring my probe to measure it.
Do we have to kill it first or do you think it will surrender peacefully? I would hate to damage the fur on it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Interesting, Dave. So, what technically constitutes a thought exactly? What are the boundaries that distinguish one set of excited neurons vs. another? For example, is there a distinction between neural networks that excite on sensory input vs. our internal monologue or, say, reminiscing? (I realize there would be a difference in location, but is there something about their structure that varies and can be measured?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/17458/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4P8B0SM-B&_user=582538&_coverDate=10%2F15%2F2007&_rdoc=24&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236968%232007%23999619998%23669276%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6968&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=24&_acct=C000029718&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=582538&md5=008e14f4b6490e68feb37a83e602d338
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Dave, I couldn’t open the second link.
First link just says that they are detecting an activity in the brain associated with the thought. They are not measuring the thought itself.
If you read only the first sentence in my last post and nothing above or below it would you be able to get my thought? I don’t think so. All you would have would be a string of letters formed into words. You would generate your own thought or an image in your mind based on that chain of words.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Perhaps I’m not expressing myself coherently.
Why in the world would you believe that thougths can’t be measured?
The actual thoughts are created somewhere else. Where exactly? Lala land? On the moon? From a particular hemoglobin cell in Dick Cheney’s heart?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Ha! LOL! Let’s hope it’s that part of Dick’s anatomy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
dave bacon,
You are a humorist at heart!
HaGd,
saris are amazingly beautiful gowns, with fabrics and colors that are vibrant.
JQP,
18. “crying” over WD’s ‘Inspiration’ on PBS has inspired …. 700 plus comments!
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
JQP,
Aww, you’re a (too) softy at heart
I didn’t consult an attorney – my sister IS my attorney (a part of my prof. creative team). And she just said, “You’ve had your fun, now, uh-unh”
I still “see” a bbq, sometime, the right time, some where, the right where….
Now, here’s a WIERD one: my response to Dave’s last post was gonna be “Dick Cheney HAS a heart?”
(But OF COURSE he does, and that was just not nearly as nice as it should have been on MY PART…) I liked YOUR response much better JQP.
Rest easy.
***
Kate, I hope we one day talk about saris… and even your visit with someone whom, (although I never met her), I loved deeply.
***
HavinAgreatWeek
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Hav. Seems to me THAT WAS A BIG MISTAKE, but better late than later. For Email exchange, you can call me XXX-XX-XXXXXX. I’m 7h ahead your east coast. [editors note: phone number deleted at request of author]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 7:31 am
I don’t think Hana lives near the Santa Monica mountains.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 8:16 am
The best exchange in this forum are the posts dated from 4/30/2007 through 5/30/2007. You can see exactly where DB stands. I think the point, “…that there is more to be gained in a robust society which is not content with its place in the universe”, are very true words. What would a content and, it follows, complacent world be like? What would push it to improve itself?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Maybe it would be like the walking-asleep in Logan’s Run. Yuck!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Thoughts are measurable because they are electrical and to whatever degree we can measure electricity, we can measure thoughts, or at least the energy they generate. If we are, to some extent, mini-me’s of a creator or creators, or even just different aspects of the universe, (which is electrical,) then the idea that we can generate thought in the brain is not so far-fetched.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 8:56 am
JQP, I thought your list was hilarious! Glad to see you back, BTW.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Oh, and #17 also gave us the Brown boys: Jerry and Ron, also ancient history. I hear Jerry is trying to make a comeback. Unless the life-after-death thing is for real, at least you won’t have Ron to contend with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 9:22 am
“…the universe, (which is electrical,)”
I do not understand this. The electromagnetic force is one of four known forces, i.e.: EM, strong and weak nuclear and gravity. The GUT (Grand Unified Theory) seeks to find the common basis behind all of them, but to define existence (by definition, the ‘Universe’) as based on just one aspect of one known force makes no sense. Electricity as we know it is only the movement of electrons across a positive/negative differential (potential, measured in Volts). One of the keys to understanding the universe is not the effect of this potential on charged particles but the nature of (and reason for) this positive/negative duality in the first place.
Basically, saying that the entire Universe is electrical is like saying a car moves because it is red.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Thanks, Jodee.
1. Darryl Issa’s product, last I looked, is still in the mansion smoking cigars, driving his eco converted Hummer, and mispronouncing his state’s name. (Well, he’s there at least during the cold winters and election years.) So, not so old news. I’m not trying to paint Southern California a “red state,” but the outside perception of its liberal politics and wacky cults (like Scientology) is overblown and way over-generalized. In my county here in So. Cal., 75% are registered republicans currently, which does not include me, by the way. Orange County is largely conservative, and San Diego, where I’m originally from, is the home of folks like Duncan Hunter (arch conservative backed by Ann Coulter) and is very conservative in its politics. I am willing to bet San Diego is more than 50% Republican. The California stereotype does not hold when you look at its demographics. My politics? Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I have lived in So. Cal. all my life and my politics are not locally uncommon at all.
(“Moonbeam” Jerry is going to get any traction anymore.)
2. Why must we have a creator?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Zer0, is it just me or are you getting a little defensive? I didn’t mean the “don’t give a hoot” as an insult, by any means. People, regardless of gender, tend to remember the things/details that are important to them. Frankly, I would probably find myself in a similar boat as you in the party scenario. I don’t care about the externals, and most of what people say at parties I find irrelevant anyway, so I would make a lousy reporter for wife, too. Those devilish details maybe part of her relational associations.
are a bit limiting, but will have to suffice, I guess. 
:-):-)
I might be helpful for you and your wife to see yourselves as complimentary instead of opposite. Then it’s easier to appreciate the differences and not see them as a source of contention. (re: her complaining about it.) You are who you are and you’re both great. That’s an assumption based on the fact that you impress me as a pretty neat guy and I don’t see you being stupid about choosing a wife.
The disadvantage to writing is that the other person can’t hear your tone of voice or see your facial expressions. Believe me, I’m smiling and often laughing most of the time. These
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 9:47 am
JQP, my parents just moved from SD a couple years ago. You’d never convince them it was conservative. Granted it used to be.
And the main reason I think there must be a creator is that I can’t wrap my brain around a series of randomly happily coincidental events. The evidence doesn’t back that up either. There’s a DVD out called Unlocking the Secrets of DNA. It’s absolutely fascinating. Check it out. Lot’s of your type science guys on there, so you should feel at home.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 10:12 am
1. Well, since I take it your parents are devoutly Catholic, and likely socially conservative, yeah they might see SD–and probably the whole country–as ruled by leftists. So, that stands to reason.
2. Before I look at your suggestion, couldn’t there be yet another conspiracy behind your DVD? I don’t want to be sucked away from my comfortable consumer slavery for an uncomfortable life growing beets and trading with needles and cows.
3. Zer0 is not getting the kind of “love” (i.e., debate) he wanted from DB, I think. My personal suggestion to Zer0: you present more observations than significance. It’s hard to comment on just observations unless the consequences of them are either explained or understood. You need to take it to the next step. For example, you cite that paradoxical polarities exist together and instantaneously. Okay. What is the significance of that? Where does that lead us?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 10:15 am
JQP, correction – that’s “Unlocking the Mysteries of DNA”.
Gary, your definition of electricity is much too limiting. “Electricity as we know it is only the movement of electrons across a positive/negative differential (potential, measured in Volts). ”
You gave yourself a clue when you qualified it with “as we know it.” I don’t think we’ll ever know all there is to know about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
“Zer0, is it just me or are you getting a little defensive?”
Jodee, it is you, I’m not getting defensive at all. I don’t know what led you to come to that conclusion.
I’ll use more smiley faces if that will help.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 10:39 am
“I don’t think we’ll ever know all there is to know about it.”
What, please, is the point of discussing what we do not know? Then why don’t we discuss the proliferation of blue zorkins on the moons of Xylock?
My point is…if you want to make up a new name for the matter/energy/spacetime structure of the Universe, fine. Unfortunately, ‘Electricity’ is already taken. That’s even worse than Dyer’s usurpation of ‘Energy’. And it also appears you don’t (really) know all that much about this electricity stuff, do you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 10:50 am
for you dear HaGd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fraW1HmI_vI&mode=related&search=
JQP,
Is it not possible that the mystery of life is unravelled
within the understanding
that there is a
‘creator’
(perhaps more than one!)
which began this
amazing Life/Universe
?
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I have to agree with, Gary. The need to fill the mysterious with outright speculation has been one of my themes, as well. That is one thing I don’t get from the HAGDS camp, either. When we can and do explain mysteries the “new agers” say it takes the wonderment out of nature’s beauty. On the other, there is an attempt in their camp to explain other mysteries with all kinds of made up idle speculation.
We all know humankind has always speculated on the big questions. It is our nature. But the problem is when it stops there and the speculation is taken as fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 10:56 am
JQP, last post #3
Wrong conclusion re. DB, but good suggestion re. the completeness of my posts. I will take the next step.
But you and everyone else have to play by the same rules also.
If my replies are a little late it’s because I’m at work and have higher priorities at the moment.
Also, the evenings and the weekends the computer is off limits for me. I got a 20 month old daughter and lots of projects around the house that never end.
You know anyone who sells time? I’ll pay cash
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Kate, I think creating a creator raises more questions than it could ever answer. So, I believe that it takes us further from unravelling the mysteries and for all the traditional philosophical reasons brought up so many time in these discussions. Who created the creator? If no one, then there really is spontaneous generation (which leads to leads to so many more questions)? Why did the creator design so many useless objects? (Do we really need Pluto anymore? After all, it was lying to us and turned out to not really be a planet.) And what about all the debris in the Kupier belt? And the amount of wasted genes found in DNA? And the billions and billions of planets that have absolutely no affect on anything anywhere?
The idea of a designer gets us no closer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Hi JQP,
as always you ask great questions.
I believe
based on the evidence I see,
there is a reason for every piece of anything,
whether we dub it useful, or not.
( I agree, debris doesn’t ‘seem’ to serve a purpose. The waste from the galazy – or even the local dumpster – provides a challenge as to how to despose of waste!)
I believe there is a way to explain the origin of things scientifically (not that I can site equations- other that Einstein’s famous – you know
and still allow for the mystery of who/what began it ALL (the creator/co-creator).
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 11:49 am
So then, Kate, do you believe there will be a purpose for these things beyond human life? That is, it is known that our sun will eventually run out of hydrogen, become a red giant and will most as undoubtedly swallow the earth and all if its life here. Life in our solar system is not permanent. What will the purpose then be devoid of any earthly life?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
There are several possibiliites as I see it, for human life to survive beyond the sun’s demise.
It could involve our leaving planet earth and traveling into the galaxy and setting up shop where the environment is hospitable.
Can we continue to evolve on earth, and morph into something beyond what we as humans are now? With greater abilities to survive harsh environments (we manage this now, even in the face of nature’s events)
Science has already made cloning animals possible. What say you about cloning humans?
I can’t tell you the purpose of the sunset, but I can describe the beauty of it’s majesty as I see and feel it.
Is it possible to live without a purpose? And let life unfold and when death comes, the next stage of the journey – whatever it is – will be revealed then (it’s then, or – never
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
True. But here is what I believe is the dividing line in our views: is that extended life destined or simply the work of free willed humans? That is, do you believe it is *possible* that humankind won’t get off the planet in time because we create our own destiny? If so, then the whole purpose of the universe seems to dissipate. If we have freewill then we have the ability to (unwittingly) defeat any higher purpose. Can higher purpose exist if it relies on the random outcomes of free will?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Maybe the ‘higher purpose’ is to simply observe the random outcomes of free will.:-D
Plus, this debate begs the question: if there is a higher purpose to the Universe, who ever said humans have anything to do with it? The developer is buldozing for the new high rise and two caterpillars debate if their universe will have meaning when the bulldozer arrives. They may not, but their ‘universe’, though changed, will continue with or without them. Arrogant little caterpillars.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Cloning humans? I like the idea of some of its possibilities, but not in the way I think you’re suggesting. I dislike the idea of fully developed clones (if that will be possible) because of how they could be used. (A little of an Orwellian side of me that we see a lot in Jodee.) If we can raise fully cloned humans, what is to prevent a black market to develop for their organs? A weird thought, I know.
So, I don’t like it not for the conventional reasons that it is humans messing with nature. We are a part of nature and what we do is not separate any more than any other animal that consumes its environment. (But we can overdo it, and must be careful.) And, yes, I will eat genetically altered fruit, and probably already do. But the possible uses for fully cloned humans crosses an ethical line.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Gary: that is one of the many possibilities you get into if you assume a designer. That we really aren’t part of the plan at all. DB said earlier, “What is proved by religion is a lack of imagination.” You are basically pointing that out. Think of all the possibilities of what that designer could be and intend. Both the Jeudeo-Christian-Islamic view of a rewarding god and the new age spirituality of a benevolent source seems to never consider (i.e., closed minded) the endless possibilities of what kind of creator could exist. Let’s assume a creator. What evidence is there that he is benevolent at all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Hana and Kate -
WONDERFUL. Would love the chance to get to know both of you a bit more…
****
All that all areas of science bring to the table only expands my wonder…
And my posts were not meant to be conclusions.
(That’s why I ended up making them so brief… realized what JQP wrote way up in the posts: no possible way to do any of it justice with the limited time etc. I had to write about it in here.)
Plus, WAY too much clarification would have been needed (Thought that as soon as I read the processing regarding my first two…)
_________________
(For Zero – regarding the science of the brain and of the body and how it really does all communicate with each other… Not sure if this helps with what you were asking, but the brain definitely receives info from other areas of the body – the “gutt” (general term for many organs etc. in that area), the pituitary gland, etc – that information delivered to the brain can spur thoughts. And not to debate the Bacon – cuz I really do like him so much
, (and really don’t like debatin’) but you might want to ask a neurologist/neuropsychologist about the latest findings in terms of brain imaging etc. in their respective fields (regarding the ability to study the length of ONE specific thought…). I work closely with quite a few, and I haven’t heard a definitive conclusion on anything like that. HOWEVER, a PSYCHIC might be able to give you that info 
.
+ one more
____________
Kate, thanks for having the strength to engage in an important conversation (above) without it tiring you out.
I’ll out myself fully as believing in a creator – one that I think the window of science will eventually see much more clearly too… (But that’s just a thought, not a conclusion)
(Me – too easily drained of energy needed for other things to engage as well as you in this area! Or just – too easily drained?)
_________________
PS Now y’all go watch Wayne’s Dyer’s INSPIRATION tape
– if ya haven’t already.
(JQP, we can watch it together wearing our saris
)
_______________________
TTFN (Ta-ta for now, and PERHAPS for quite a while)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I have actually heard of a theology called Maltheism which postulates that there is, indeed a God, but that He is intrinsically evil.
Personally, I don’t believe in all that new-age astrology type stuff, but then I’m a Gemini and we tend to be skeptical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Ha! LOL! Yeah, I’m a Libra but can’t really decide on it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I’m stunned that HAGDS believes in a creator. I never would have guessed. HAGDS, we have to play poker some time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
All I can say is if there is a god, it has a lot of explaining to do. Talk about an absentee slumlord.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
(had to copy and paste Hana’s and Kate’s info, so I’m still here…)
Gary, who brought up astrology? Your comment, with ALL of it’s duality, WAS very funny.
Good wishes to you both,
TTFN…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Thanks, Gary. I am now a devout Misothesist. As of now I pledge to cease all my human sacrifices to this indifferent god.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Dave, regarding the nature of thoughts:
Can I get a ride to Dave’s Quantum Cafe if I take the #9 Impulse Bus at the next corner? 
You didn’t answer JQP’s questions as to what constitutes thoughts. If you had answered I would have had a starting point for going to the next step per JQP’s suggestion.
Your assumption that there is no reason why thoughts can’t be measured leads me to speculate (since you didn’t define what thoughts were) that you believe that thoughts are the electrical impulses measured by the instruments. If this is so then your eyes must be thinking about a red ball every time you “see” a red ball. The impulses going from your eyes to your brain are the thoughts of your eyes. I wonder what my finger is thinking as I type these words?
Is there a difference between the impulses generated in your eyes (or anywhere else) and the ones in your brain? I would like to know about it if there is.
What is a thought and where does it come from?
Obviously for you a thought is an impulse and it comes from the Impulse land.
What are my “impulses” about the nature of “impulses”?
I impulse, no, I think that thoughts come from the same place where everything else in the universe comes from. From the same place where Jodee’s electricity comes from. The same place where Dave’s quanta comes from. The virtual vacuum.
I’m not going to attempt to explain what that means. You already know my reasons. But if you can spare a few hours and watch the movies and read the link info, you would know where I’m coming from. I think we are a lot more than impulse generating and processing organic machines. The nervous system is like a circuit that can convert the radiant energy from the vacuum to electromagnetic form detectable by our instruments.
What are the implications? You can make your own conclusions.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1066893416132462243
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2858148671911962750
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/index.html
http://www.cheniere.org/articles/index.html
Out of time again. I seriously need to retire soon
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Kate,
are you a musical artist? Or was that link a beautiful gift?
____________________________
JQP, I’d have fun playing poker with you.
(And your wife
But my east coast attorney sis has already put her foot down.
Ah well…..
_____________________________________
Will be checking back sooner than I thought to find out about Kate’s link
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
HAGDS, sarcasm escapes you, doesn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I’m with JQP as far as a creator is concerned.
Especially one with any human characteristics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Yes, it’s anthropomorphism, Zer0. But I challenge any believer to explain to me why a source of *pure* benevolence and love would create such a violent nature in its creatures (and I’m not talking about humans). It’s like creating children who you teach eat each other in the most brutal way because you’re so full of love. (??) I believe this Pollyannish view to be strictly anthropomorphic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Let me restate my challenge in Dyer’s terms. In one of his telecasts he challenges us to find beauty in anything. First he uses Viktor Frankle’s confinement as example. The one where he sees beauty with fish heads floating in a soup bowl. Then Dyer, thinking he’s giving the audience a real challenge because of the way he nods his head, says find the beauty in a “homeless man urinating on the street.” Well, since we believe the man to be victim that’s hardly a challenge. Of course we feel sorry for him.
But here’s my challenge to Dyer’s believers: watch nature as “god” created it and show me the beauty in it; when a pack of lions shred a water buffalo as it lives on, or when silverback gorillas gang rape their females and stomp on their lifeless bodies afterwards. (Which occurs in the wild and is well documented.) Or, for real beauty, watch the female preying mantis eat its mate afterwards. Show me the beauty in those things.
Is this the work of a loving source that only creates and never destroys?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Aww, Kate’s still not back…
Off for the week-end for me.
PS JQP, no, sarcasm doesn’t escape me – I just respond in a way to try to transform it into something kinder.
Works for me – doesn’t need to work for you however.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 12:50 am
No, it’s just another way that you avoid what you don’t like so you don’t have to cope with it. Isn’t coping with things as they really are more healthy than inventing fantasies?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I just watched Dyer’s latest telecast. (Well, this time I got through more of it because I kept the barf bag close by.) I saw the pool anecdote Jodee talked about. She was exactly right and “Lord of the Flies” was a perfect comment. We all know that kids would create a perfect world if it wasn’t for those darn meddling adults. I’m sure everyone remembers the elementary school playground where the kids ruled without much intervention. Yes, we all remember how no one was picked on or harassed; or how sharing and inclusion was the standard of the day. And if there was someone different, no one dared singled them out or, gasp!, made fun of. Invariably, bullies would see the ineffectiveness of their aggression and all differences were worked out by the recess bell. Indeed, as we all know, children always play the glad game and find something positive in everything and everyone.
What planet is he from exactly?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
It was not long before life at the Harrington homestead settled into something like order—though not exactly the order that Miss Polly had at first prescribed. HavAGr8Day sewed, practiced, read aloud, and studied cooking in the kitchen, it is true; but she did not give to any of these things quite so much time as had first been planned. She had more time, also, to “just live,” as she expressed it, for almost all of every afternoon from two until six o’clock was hers to do with as she liked—provided she did not “like” to do certain things already prohibited by Aunt Polly.
It is a question, perhaps, whether all this leisure time was given to the child as a relief to HavAGr8Day from work—or as a relief to Aunt Polly from HavAGr8Day. Certainly, as those first July days passed, Miss Polly found occasion many times to exclaim “What an extraordinary child!” and certainly the reading and sewing lessons found her at their conclusion each day somewhat dazed and wholly exhausted.
Nancy, in the kitchen, fared better. She was not dazed nor exhausted. Wednesdays and Saturdays came to be, indeed, red-letter days to her.
There were no children in the immediate neighborhood of the Harrington homestead for HavAGr8Day to play with. The house itself was on the outskirts of Kanan Road, and though there were other houses not far away, they did not chance to contain any boys or girls near HavAGr8Day’s age. This, however, did not seem to disturb HavAGr8Day in the least.
“Oh, no, I don’t mind it at all,” she explained to Nancy. “I’m happy just to walk around and see the streets and the houses and watch the people. I just love people. Don’t you, Nancy?”
“Well, I can’t say I do—all of ’em,” retorted Nancy, tersely.
Almost every pleasant afternoon found HavAGr8Day begging for “an errand to run,” so that she might be off for a walk in one direction or another; and it was on these walks that frequently she met the Man. To herself HavAGr8Day always called him “the Man,” no matter if she met a dozen other men the same day.
The Man often wore a long black coat and a high silk hat—two things that the “just men” never wore. His face was clean shaved and rather pale, and his hair, showing below his hat, was somewhat gray. He walked erect, and rather rapidly, and he was always alone, which made HavAGr8Day vaguely sorry for him. Perhaps it was because of this that she one day spoke to him.
“How do you do, sir? Isn’t this a nice day?” she called cheerily, as she approached him.
The man threw a hurried glance about him, then stopped uncertainly.
“Did you speak—to me?” he asked in a sharp voice.
“Yes, sir,” beamed HavAGr8Day. “I say, it’s a nice day, isn’t it?”
“Eh? Oh! Humph!” he grunted; and strode on again.
HavAGr8Day laughed. He was such a funny man, she thought.
The next day she saw him again.
“ ’Tisn’t quite so nice as yesterday, but it’s pretty nice,” she called out cheerfully.
“Eh? Oh! Humph!” grunted the man as before; and once again HavAGr8Day laughed happily.
When for the third time HavAGr8Day accosted him in much the same manner, the man stopped abruptly.
“See here, child, who are you, and why are you speaking to me every day?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“Sir,” said HavAGr8Day, “because you are walking through our garden and stomping on our produce.
I didn’t want to make you feel sad by saying it to your face. You seem so sad as it is (and you never know what another is going through).
HavAGr8day continued
…
I might say ‘Sir, isn’t a lovely day – and perhaps could you walk ANOTHER WAY so that you don’t in fact smash our produce?’ and you might do just that; head off down Kanan – to where it crosses the 101 freeway – and jump off the bridge. Sad people have been known to do that. (Before they take their blinders off).”
And the pale man crumpled down in the garden and cried. It had been so long since he had experienced compassion, so long since he had since he had even cracked open the door to the prison he had constructed for himself.
“I’m so sorry for walking all over your vegetables,” he sobbed. “Will you have enough to eat?” And HavAGr8Day plunked down next to him, and said, “no worries, not only do we have other gardens, but the earth is always offering up more.”
Than she said to The Man, (whose cheeks were growing a bit rosy), “besides, what Nancy doesn’t know, is that when I’m off on my journeys, many of my friends join me too – and they have many gardens also. Of all sorts. And so, there is ALWAYS more than enough.”
The Man dried his eyes on his arm, and looked at the girl – as if really seeing another living thing for the very first time. “You know,” he said, “I’ve grown bitter with age. It CAN happen that way you see.”
HavAGr8Day patted his shoulder. And The Man didn’t recoil, because it was the first time he had felt comfortable in his own skin in such a long while…….
And then the man began babbling, something about a dryer on some island, and, and, and… well, it was all a bit discombobulated sounding to HavAGr8Day. And so she just listened until she thought he felt better.
“You know,” she said, “I don’t seem to know as much dryers as you do, but perhaps you shouldn’t worry about it so much. Not everything is meant for everybody, at least, that’s what I think.
Most of the best things that have come into my life,” she continued, “have come most effortlessly.”
Secretly, HavAGr8day was continuing to talk to him because the great outdoors itself was in some way helping him breathe better. His eyes WERE beginning to sparkle…
“Well,” said HavaGr8Day, (as she thought to herself, “WHO IS NANCY?”),”Nancy,” will be needing me home soon (according to the story I just read), thus, I will need to head home so she does not worry. (For there are some things in this great wide world to be concerned about.”
The rosy cheeked, bright eyed man nodded (who, for some reason, looked almost a decade younger). He’d taken off his jacket and hat (which was just way too hot for the southern sun – and he was just hiding beneath it anyway) – and was sort of stretching himself out.
“I’ll not walk on your garden anymore,” he said, smiling. HavAGr8Day smiled back at him: “You know, that’s the garden we most often share anyway. If you’d ever like to stop by and eat something, tend something, grow something – you are always welcome. AND – there are a lot of other people that you will meet here too. But they will leave you alone if you like as well.”
Deep down The Man was kind, and he didn’t want to keep the girl from the many other things she needed to do. And so, he told her to “Have a great day,” and she said “Thank you,” (and meant it).
And then they both headed off…
NEVER TO SEE EACH OTHER AGAIN.
(Although, as she grew, HavAGr8day often hoped that The Man was still alive, and that his life had blossomed in many wonderful and unexpected ways. For, as with most people, he too had touched her heart.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
JQP,
I have not seen the latest WD offering on PBS. The example you give about children in the playgorund is a valid one.
I often walk near a river by my home. There are times when I am watching the ducks, and how they interact. Some are quite vocal, some are bullies, some retreat, and others seem to take no notice of the fracas, and just – ignore it.
What distinqiushes us as humans, imo, is our ability to grow emotionally and intellectually.
We can outgrow/overcome our innate tendencies which seem often to lead into aggression (is that – just a male thing, btw
HaGd,
It has the power to move people.
Yes I do have a career in music. I have been able to work with some very talented musicians. to me, music is a ‘universal’ language – it can capture the sounds of nature and of human experience within its compositions. The blending of voice and instrument is – a form of – magic
But I have also discovered, there is something to be experienced and appreciated
by
silence
love,
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
David Bacon,
thank you for providing this rest post a long the highway of life.
I will be SO interested in stopping by sometime when I pass through this way again (perhaps in several months, or several years…).
I ABSOLUTELY EXPECT to be delighted by all that you have discovered whilst delving into the cosmos.
I have Hana’s info (so, if Hana, or you, ever want to delete that, just wanted you to know…), and I think I know how to get in touch with Kate if that is meant to be
.
By the way: the above story ends with:
AND THEY ALL:
ACCEPTED WHAT IS,
AND LIVED; HAPPILY EACH DAY THEREAFTER.
Thanks Dr. David Bacon. Really
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Look, Kate posted at exactly the same time I did.
I have a feeling we WILL come into each other’s lives sometime Kate…
Blessings to you Kate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
And may you someday learn the value of growing beyond an emotionally stunted ten year old.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
dear HaGd,
I hope you will not stay away long.
Life can blossom in unexpected ways, so true!
If you stay open to all the possibilities (and I think WD would agree on this – the world offers infinite discoveries),
the joy in this journey will never escape you.
with love,
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Dang, my last post until I swing this by this way again…
and it wasn’t golden.
Will try it again, a last post, until then… post needs that:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Posted again at exactly the same time as Kate.
Love that. SO cute.
Until then ~
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Illustrated Wayne Dyer method for supervising small children around pools and dealing with life’s difficulties in general.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r317/Retromingent/Chimp-Poster.jpg
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
1. At first I thought HavAGr8Day was just kind of silly and fun. I’m sorry, but acting (even if it’s written expression) that much like a child in public is not a sign of happiness but of some serious issues. When she put out the invitation then retracted it with the “my attorney says” line, I thought this is not right. First, it was strange to put something like that out unless you really know the people, but then that striking reversal was bizarre. Most sensible people would have simply asked DB to retract it with no need to mention an attorney. Jodee’s observations about her were dead on. It was like having an uncontrollable kid screaming through the house and jumping on all the furniture.
Oh well, these are the minds that Dyer preys on the most. Shame on him.
2. I think Jodee said Dyer was divorced twice. I found that’s wrong. He’s now divorced three times! Marcelene is the latest to go. Normally, I don’t care about personal things like that. But most of his books give relationship advice and specifically how to make marriages work. That is what he does. Tells you how to get along with others. If he does all the things he says, how could he possibly not get along with his wife? Especially with 7 children. I never give advice on relationships, but I’ve been married just once and for 30 years. We never split, never talked about splitting, and we don’t even really argue. (And we’re both retired with an empty nest. Talk about seeing someone a lot.) Marriage is easy. I don’t get why people have problems with it. My only guess is some just don’t want to compromise and want things on their own terms. If you’re selfish, of course it’s not going to work. I couldn’t imagine a life without my wife. (My wife says Dyer is the most annoying individual she’s ever seen speak. That his constantly rolling hands make her nauseous.) Why would I take his advice on personal relationships? Why would anyone with his kind of track record?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Yes, DB, kindly delete my previous post. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
A comment on the story I posted earlier in complete italics. The point was completely missed because HavAGr8Day, who continued it for some strange reason. I put that up the with the possibility that as the “writer” she is, assuming she would have some remote knowledge of literary classics, she would recognize the names Aunt Polly and Nancy. That post was simply “Pollyanna,” written in 1913, changed to replace the protagonist’s name with HavAGr8Day. The point was the things Pollyanna says are startlingly similar to posts in here. Almost to a tee. That the sentiments are literally Pollyannaish.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I was wondering: is JQP really Dave Bacon?
I was wondering: is Dave Bacon really Wayne Dyer?
I was wondering: is Jodee really a demon?
I was wondering: Is HavAgr8Day real at all?
I was wondering: are all of you maybe the same person?
I was wondering: do they allow internet access in State Hospitals?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Haven’t seen your name in a while, Wu tzu. I think you just insulted Dave. No, I’m not him. Can’t prove it, so you’ll just have to take my word.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Kate: “We can outgrow/overcome our innate tendencies which seem often to lead into aggression…”
If they’re innate, aren’t they the ones closer to the source? Aren’t they the ones the source intended for us to use?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Hi JQP,
your last question
yes,
it appears so
BUT
(there always has to be one
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Interesting. So you think that the source possesses aggression and is not just of pure love and creativity, correct?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
if you consider when a baby is born,
it is
defenseless
is this closer
to our ‘true’ nature
?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Well, I don’t think so because the state that enables survival and lives on are the qualities of adulthood. And it is structured that adulthood is the vast majority of life. The child state is temporary and not effective. But what I find interesting is that someone believing in what you just said would also consider that aggression is part of the source.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
To be clear, I’m using the Dyer logic of children-are-close-to-the-source-state to show that it would also include aggression.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Basically, this new age view is love is natural and hate is learned. They claim, “I *know* what the source is and it is pure love. And hate is a human creation.” So many of my posts are attempts for those who believe this to explain how they know that when love has such a small footprint and why they do not think it is just a projection of not how things are but how they want them to be. But I don’t get any takers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Well, John, you may recall my first post: “What, exactly, was the subject of debate again?”
Everyone seems to keep getting off track. This forum is a fascinating read when all keep to the academic discussion of Science, Philosophy and Theology (with or without Wayne ‘Snakeoil’ Dyer), no matter what their particular opinion. It keeps going astray when everyone gets so personal, sharing family history and private details about their lives. Who cares? Like Zer0 said, it’s almost like reading someone’s diary. The debate should focus on the points of the debate, wherever it may lead. Otherwise (for the lonely hearts) may I recommend ‘Myspace.com’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Agreed. Sometimes, though, you have to go there because: 1) establishing credibility by experience, 2) anecdotes illustrate points, 3) hard questioning loses people and sometimes softening the discussion brings them back. So, I completely agree with you, but it just doesn’t work as rationally as one would like.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I hope Kate can find the time to respond to my last point with her on Dyer. I felt that was going somewhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
JohnQ:
You’re not fooling anybody. I think you need to drop “Public” from your posting name as you certainly don’t represent any healthy person I have ever known.
Your lengthy story written about the individual posting as HAGD was not only creepy but down right bizarre – and possibly obsessive. Some of your other posts reveal similar tendencies.
Take a good look in the mirror. Buddy, you are not currently doing yourself or this site any favors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
JohnQ:
You’re not fooling anybody. I think you need to drop “Public” from your posting name as you certainly don’t represent any healthy person I have ever known.
Your lengthy story written about the individual posting as HAGD was not only creepy but down right bizarre – and possibly obsessive. Some of your other posts reveal similar tendencies.
Take a good look in the mirror. Buddy, you are not currently doing yourself or this site any favors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Like I said, I didn’t write the story. It’s Pollyanna with her name put it. That was all. It’s not my story. Her writing had exactly the same sentiments and the parallels were amusing.
Doing myself a favor? Doesn’t make sense, but I’ll bite. What do you mean?
And in what way am I attempting to fool anyone?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
So, do you think it was right for HAGD to make this her personal teenage diary?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
John Q:
it seems to me that perhaps those were fairly close to HAGD’s intentions all a long, (as well as sharing what she seemed to sincerely believe were potentially helpful experiences that not all people have had the opportunity of having). So I’ll give you, John Q, a bit of credit (but not for your intentions):
From Wikipedia: Pollyanna tells the story of Pollyanna Whittier, a young girl who goes to live with her wealthy Aunt Polly after her father’s death. Pollyanna’s philosophy of life centers on what she calls “The Glad Game”: she always tries to find something to be glad about in every situation, and to always do without delay whatever she thinks is right. With this philosophy, and her own sunny personality, she brings so much gladness to her aunt’s dispirited New England town that she transforms it into a pleasant, healthy place to live.
Despite mixed perceptions of its literary merit, Pollyanna has proved to be both enduringly popular and, in unexpected ways, influential.
Through the success of the book, the term “pollyanna” (along with the adjective “pollyannaish” and the noun “Pollyannaism”) entered the language to describe someone who is cheerfully optimistic and who maintains a generous attitude toward the motives of other people. It then became by extension (and contrary to the spirit of the book) a derogatory term for a naïve optimist who always expects people to act decently, despite strong evidence to the contrary.
I must say, reading the portion you chose to post,
while throwing in geographical changes, did feel very disturbing.
Interesting to see that a man would feel that way too. (What motivated me to post this.)
Observation: I’ve read MUCH more about your personal and professional lives on this board than about anyone else’s (and your posts do seem very high in hostility and insults btw)
Perhaps if you addressed others with a more fair and kind approach, they would be more willing to give you the dialogue you seem so eager to have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 12:10 am
And perhaps if the posts contained less personal attack, (ie; comparing a poster’s farming lifestyle disparingly to that of your own), as opposed to simply containing less PERSON, there would be a greater chance for an illuminating exchange of ideas and conversation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Please don’t take it as an insult if you do not receive a reply back from me. I read most of these posts in one evening – quite enough for me.
And, as a visitor on holiday, I know my host and hostess would rather I spend my time with them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Oh, Okay. And why do you care?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 10:21 am
I was wondering: is Dave Bacon really Wayne Dyer?
Well you can check this by asking Wayne Dyer to explain one of my papers : http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?page_id=912
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Ha. LOL. Good one, Dave.
P.S. I was just trying to lighten things up a bit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 11:16 am
By the way, I need to clarify something. I in no way disparaged Jodee and/or farming. That was a complete misread. I was poking fun at the comments about the economy collapsing, standing in food lines and that we are consumer-wage slaves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Speaking of Jodee, I notice you haven’t come back to take up my electricity challenge. In my opinion, if you want to figure out the (non-supernatural) underpinnings of the Universe, electricity is not the way to go. It is just a superficial atomic level consequence of its structure. You need to go far beyond this, beyond even the subatomic, past the quarks, gluons, muons, etc. The secret lies in the natures of time and light.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I would enjoy a Jodee response to that, as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
JQP, looks like we are back where we we were before you suddenly disappeared. Even I with my bad memory remember the ugly state of the blog scene back then.
I would like to give you an advice. For the sake of keeping the discussion off the personal level why don’t you just skip over the posts that are off of the more important subjects. You don’t have to answer each and every post. Be more selective in picking the posts to reply to. If you think that you are somehow protecting the rest of us from the “propaganda” from HAG8D or others, then you are treating us as children. I think most of us are wise enough to give the proper importance to those posts. I indicated to HAG8D what I felt about her posts as diplomatically as I could. If she “did not get it” and chose to continue the same, then I will just skip over her posts and will not honer them with a reply.
By starting and keeping the static going you are not doing anyone a favor. You are actually distracting from the more interesting discussions that can develop if we let it.
I am treating the above as a constructive criticism, and I hope you do the same.
I think you have something important to say. I don’t want to start skipping over your posts in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I understand. I didn’t think I was protecting anyone, I was speaking purely for me. And since she said she wasn’t checking this site anymore, I felt liberated to say what I wanted. But if I can get her to go to MySpace, as Wu tzu suggested, then I feel I have made a contribution however small.
But I will certainly take your advice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Mr. Bacon has certainly spent a considerable amount of time and energy, perhaps spiritual, trying to make a point. Not sure what it is, but the energy spent might have been best directed at “ego”. “Change is the result of TRUE learning…”
-Buscaglia-
Some learn at a faster pace than others. Peace be with you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Gary, have you checked out the links that I posted back on 10/12/07.
If you have a chance check this one out. I think it goes into covering the nature of the universe, and were things come from.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1066893416132462243
I would like to get your opinion on this perspective on the universe.
JQP, Jodeee, Dave and anyone else is welcome to share their thoughts on this. I think it’s an interesting subject to go into.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Actually that video is mostly related to the energy extraction. I should have referenced the one below.
This one has more meat regarding the vacuum potential.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4242030440208468502
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 16th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Related news:
“Two years after challenging a selection of religious fundamentalists to justify their beliefs in Channel 4’s The Root of All Evil,Richard Dawkins – “Darwin’s rottweiler” – is growling again. This time, in The Enemies of Reason, he takes on the wider penumbra of the paranormal, New Age mystical mumbo-jumbo, and the often expensive spiritual services that bring succour to the sucker.
His targets include astrologers, psychics, dowsers, homoeopaths and a woman called Elisis Livingstone who claims that in our Atlantean past we all had 12 strands of DNA rather than two. If the thought of being ten strands short bothers you, Livingstone claims she can restore them.
What makes Oxford University’s Professor of the Public Understanding of Science different from most sceptics, rationalists and humanists is that he won’t let this stuff lie. If someone claims that they can “channel” the spirits of the dead or alleviate the symptoms of some horrible incurable disease by pointing beams of coloured light at your chakras, Dawkins does not want to dismiss it as harmless fun. He wants to know how they claim to do it and what hard evidence they can produce to show that the effects they say they produce actually occur. This may seem like taking a steamhammer to smash a peanut, and Dawkins is aware that some people see him as a kill-joy, but for him the fun is not harmless. “We live in dangerous times,” he says at the start of the first show, by which he means not just the threat from, say, Islamic fundamentalism, but a more general flight from reason and the scientific method. Speaking at his office in Oxford, he says that the decline in interest in the physical sciences in schools is tragic. “The lack of scientific education means that people are not armed, not equipped to see through irrationality.”
– I could not agree more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 16th, 2007 at 5:43 am
One more excerpt from that article:
“The fact that homoeopathic remedies are claimed to work despite containing not a single molecule of the supposed active ingredient. (Dawkins points out that it is statistically almost certain that at least one molecule of every glass of water we drink will have passed through Oliver Cromwell’s bladder.)”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 16th, 2007 at 6:01 am
Gdavid: “Change is the result of TRUE learning…”
Yes it is. But the ones that seem the least open to true change is the new age spiritualists. They will not open their minds when their charlatans are clearly exposed as frauds. They will not grow past the magical wishes they had as children despite the obvious. And, most of all, they tend to not only lack formal training but eschew it and deride it as narrow minded.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 16th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
JQP, I agree with your assessment regarding the new age spiritualists. I think the same applies to many other groups in both camps: materialist and spiritualist.
The problem that I have with Gdavid’s statement is the part about “TRUE learning”.
How do you know if it is TURE? What may seem true today may turn out false tomorrow. What may seem true to you may appear false to me.
By capitalizing the letters in the word TRUE I am assuming that he is implying the existence of some absolute truth. So if we find it and learn it we will change for the better.
Another way that I interpret his statement is that there is a correct way of learning and if we learn it in this particular way then we will change and that change will be for the better.
In either case I think the statement is very weak and does not have a good support for it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 16th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Zer0: The quote is actually from this individual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Buscaglia
Your logic, Zer0, tends to follow the philosophical epistemology path (how do we know what we know, or what is actually true). That’s a valid perspective, but historically it presented so many problems for philosophers that it prevented progress in their works. (That’s a very terse comment on a long history, but basically you can’t get far if you can’t agree that “red” does not exist independently of our senses or that truth is subjective to…anything.) Edmund Husserl, a major contributor to phenomenology, kind of freed up that philosophical log jam but allowing a first person point of view on philosophical examination. In my own words, what your consciousness interprets is valid and can be consider true. Therefore, here, truth can be objective and not subjective to time. In a way, you’re presenting truth as so subjective as to lose all meaning. That certainly is a valid branch of philosophy, but, again, you can’t go anywhere with it because it stops any discussion at square one. So, I think it’s fair to say the working definition here of “true learning” is that change is the measurement of learning. (The more one changes their position, the more learned they are.) I’m pretty sure that is what Buscaglia meant and Gdavid is driving at. This typically means the willingness to drop whatever preconceptions or collective baggage you have about a given subject to the point of completely overthrowing your most fundamental world view. That is the typical view anyone who is saying, “come over to my belief system” to someone who is far and away from their belief system.
The problem with his statement is that movement from one belief system to another is hardly a measurement of “learnedness.” Change does not inherently mean advancement. So, it’s a poor yardstick. Any new ager will tell you that movement toward unconditional love is the better yardstick. But the problem with that is it is single dimensional, because I can advance my intellect without regard to my emotions.
What it really comes down to is what ever you personally value most is how you will measurement advancement in world view. That is the real subjective part.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 16th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Zer0, regarding your video. I saw it before. Unfortunately, I don’t have a strong enough background in physics to comment on perpetual motion. All I can is every physicist I’ve worked with over the years tells it violates basic laws.
I am very qualified to discuss computer science (mostly), history, and/or economics, but not physics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 16th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Wow. You people REALLY don’t get it. LOL
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 7:00 am
We’re sorry. Could you enlighten us?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Jodee…read the article on photons in Wikipedia. You may be right after all. My apologies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Wow. You people REALLY don’t get it.
Kind of like you with antecedents?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
1. “His interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is that the observer creates (manifests) the outcome. But that was not what Heisenberg meant and that is not how Plank, Bohrs, et al interpreted it. The problem is that spin and velocity cannot be measured at the same time. They’re mutually exclusive. That’s all. Therefore, when measuring for a wave you will get wave results because of the way you have to disturb the subject, not because that is what you expect or think of or believe in. And you will get particle results when tested another way.
The Copenhagen interpretation, which has been the official one for over sixties (sic) years, says quantum effects are because the observer disturbs the subject matter in order to test it and some things such as light are so small that there is no way to test it without disturbing it in an extreme way.”
Comment by JohnQPublic — 8/15/2007
2. “I would absolutely love to hear his explanation of ultraviolet catastrophe in the blackbody radiation problem. There is a subtle, and basic, point in it I never could fully grasp: why does Planck’s constant for the quantum allow the radiation to curve off and avoid the catastrophe?”
Comment by JohnQPublic — 8/21/2007
3. “I do have a question for Bacon regarding a statement above: ‘In fact, superluminal signal propagation has been proven to be impossible in any theory consistent with conventional relativity and quantum mechanics.’
What about entanglement?”
Comment by JohnQPublic — 9/8/2007
4. “I vote on the dihedral hidden subgroup problem.”
Comment by JohnQPublic — 9/10/2007
5. “I am very qualified to discuss computer science(mostly), history, and/or economics, but not physics.”
Comment by JohnQPublic — 10/16/2007
Very curious admission, JohnQPublic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Wow. First, I said I don’t have a “strong” background in physics. I have a little. Second, the dihedral HSP problem is a math problem, not a physics problem.
But thanks for pointing that out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Zer0, I’m trying to keep it non-personal but there’s so many mean people out there! Oh, and one more point for Max, the other comments you pulled are basic physics questions, which were a direct admission to only having some knowledge of the subject. But I guess you didn’t pick up on that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I guess I forgot my little smiley face. No intention to be mean. I thought it was sort of a compliment. You seem fairly knowledgeable about the subject of Physics for someone unqualified to discuss it.
There you go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Wow. I guess I got that one wrong. I didn’t catch that “curious admission” was a compliment. But thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
JQP, thanks for the clarification on GDavid’s statement. I understand your explanation and follow your logic. I do agree that for the sake of advancement some assumptions have to be made. But my issue with any assumptions are that after a while it is forgotten that those were just assumptions. Those assumptions become blinders and may hinder advancement in other directions or beyond a certain level.
Take for example what Bearden says about the current state of electrical power engineering. According to him they are 100 years behind of what quantum mechanics has shown about the nature of the universe and electricity. If this is so, then the assumptions that were made 100 years ago regarding the nature of electricity have become so encrusted that people no longer are able to see beyond them and advance. It has become a roadblock or a log jam. That is why we don’t have free electrical energy systems (maybe one of the reasons).
My point is that assumptions are fine as long as it is understood and not forgotten that they are only assumptions, and that they can be violated by other assumptions. Ultimately the thing that all the assumptions are made about will override any and all assumptions about it.
I prefer to assume that everything is subjective rather than objective. This works better for me and does not constrain my mind. But I’m not a fool. If I get a cut, it bleeds. I’ve learned to put things in proper perspective (most of the time). At least I hope so
Thanks for your post, it was very informative and well presented.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
JQP,
Do you see my point about assumptions now?
You assumed one thing while Max meant something else.
Subjective vs. objective
But I guess it can be said that progress was made when the issue was clarified between you and Max
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Max, based on your evaluation of JQP (going all the way back to 8/15/07) can I ASSUME that you have been with us all this time and preferred to read and not to write?
If so, why?
What do you think about the posts on this blog?
I know we have had some posters that had negative things to say about us.
I’m curious as to the size of our audience.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I understand your point about subjectivity. And I know you got mine, which was objectivity as a premise.
I can’t give the quality feedback on a physics hypothesis that you’re looking for. As for the institution of science being so “encrusted” as to no longer advance itself, I believe is bull. If this is true, then allow him to substantiate his hypothesis with true peer review. If no one credible substantiates it, then it’s just his word. Lots of people site Einstein as a loner with ideas opposed by the mainstream, but they seem to fail to know is that his first contribution with special relativity was important because Max Planck, a very mainstream classicist at the time, critiqued it along the way and gave it credibility. In fact, all of Einstein’s work was validated through peer review constantly. He did not create it in a vacuum, sort of speak, and then spoke out against the institution of science. So, the typical way he is portrayed as an outsider to mainstream science is not accurate. Same with the common Galileo argument. It was the church that opposed him, not his peers. So, there’s a big misunderstanding about the great contributors of science and just “outside” they were.
If what he claims is scientifically sound, then there will be peers in the mainstream who see it and will truly give it validation. If it’s him and no credible peers, well that’s not solid ground to start with. There are far, far more “outsiders” who were wrong than ever turned out to be right in the end. What keeps us from accepting the crazy guy on the downtown corner screaming the earth is coming to an end as valid scientific thought?
Regarding the details of his position, I can’t give you the input you’re looking for.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
One other point, Zer0, (and I in no way am attempting to open this can of worms again) I believe that “mantoman,” “whatsYourPoint” and possibly “Max” are the specter of HAGD/Shhh again. “ManToMan?” What guy would choose that name unless it was Larry Craig? And the phony chest thumping is something I haven’t seen in a long time, unless Dick the Cheney made it stylish again.
Then “WhatsYourPoint” in one fell swoop reads 700+ messages and concludes exactly what HAGDS intended and defended her in detail. One of the signature traits in all these posters is how badly they interpret what is being said.
Now Max comes along and makes similar misunderstandings and, moreover, cares the most about what I said.
Again, I am not going there, but you asked Max if he was a forum lurker, and I believe his words have the earmarks of our teenage friend. But I could be wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
JQP,
Mantoman, and Max are definitely NOT me (Nor, as far as I am aware of, are they related to me.)
However, “What’s Your Point” WAS a loving houseguest – who, after discussing this over brunch last week-end, wanted to browse the site before she went to bed. I thought she would be just reading. Come to find out; she has a mind of her own
. (I didn’t read any of this until tonight – because I wanted to get some work accomplished first.)
I do hope you guys accomplish and cover some good ground with your debate/conversation… from here on out.
(Zero, I always said: skip my posts if they don’t resonate with you. Sort of like life
.
Difference posts for different folks…)
Also, my take was always different than JQP’s and a few other hard line fact types. I actually think that if you re-read many of the posts from the last couple of months – you WILL see how energy, attraction and manifestation work – in all of the poster’s lives and dynamics. I just don’t think this is a subject you can debate theoretically. Rather, I believe it is one you must LIVE, to understand it. (And then discuss it.)
*****My REAL purpose in stopping by:
…
(Didn’t want her to be left wondering…)
I wanted to tell Hana:
Although it may be quite a while until I get in touch with you (just so that I can let some distance and fresh air blow through my professional life a bit – and some fresh air blow through this blog a bit too it appears
I will call you. So glad we met
. Think there was some synchronicity happening between the two of us as well 
. And if you’ve moved by the time I call you… I have a feeling I’ll still be able to reach you 
.********
And if anyone ever wants to know if HavAgr8Day is real: if a hillarious commedian ever makes a movie out of a very funny week in his life – look for a last scene in a bank – it might just be a blond woman, (possibly me) playing myself
.
(Zero, point: amazing coinkidinks, synchronicity, and attraction DOES happen.)
Good luck to you all.
JQP, thanks for the classic Pollyanna reference. Still haven’t read it, but seems to me that character had a good handle on energy herself.
Now, for Zero’s sake, may this “static” resolve,
for my sake, may this energy connection dissolve, and may you continue your conversation without distraction…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
But to Max and Mantoman, and anyone else who presents a different viewpoint – you go guys
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
OH, sorry,
the post still says “What’sYourPoint – my relative’s posting name.
I didn’t even realize it didn’t have my posting name until after sent mine.
Oh well, here to “What’sYourPoint,” a woman older than you JQP – with some real wisdom and a GOOD HEART.
(Changing the posting name back to mine now)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 17th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Hana: read the post about three above…
(And may all of our lives blossom in wonderful and unexpected ways…)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 18th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Zer0 – I have not been with you since the beginning. I just read something someone said about JohnQPublic being Dave Bacon and I got curious. Seems he has been here almost since the beginning, has contributed about 50% of the posts, has contributed about 80% of the posts relating to Quantum Physics, works with computers and then I read that Dr. Bacon’s focus is on Quantum computing. I was intrigued and decided to try and flush him out. No luck.
BTW, I am not a female.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 18th, 2007 at 9:02 am
To further answer your question, I have enjoyed reading all of this, though. Things got a little goofy when everybody started getting personal. The interchange seemed to go from simple argumentum to argumentum ad hominem. Hopefully you are all back on track.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 18th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Well, all the good “amazing and wonderful” adjectives were being sucked out the air not leaving enough for the rest of the class. Why can’t amazing be what is truly exceptional? If everything is amazing, then nothing is amazing.
Does DB == me?
Ask yourself: doing the kind of time intensive research DB does, would he have that much free time on his hands for ridiculous idle chit-chat? And would he ask himself lame questions and then answer them? Is it being suggested that DB suffers from MPD?
The question is an insult to DB, the University of Washington, and institution of education.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 18th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“The soul of religion is one, but it is encased in a multitude of forms.” ghandi
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 19th, 2007 at 7:10 am
“…ridiculous idle chit-chat…”
Who insulted who?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 19th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Related news:
http://duplicitous46xyprimate.blogspot.com/2007/06/wayne-dyer.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 19th, 2007 at 10:33 am
I like the line:
“… appearing like a great big egomaniacal bald adolescent with wrinkles.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 19th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Sorry, Gary. …waggishly absurd blather.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 19th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
But fun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
““The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about.” – Wayne Dyer
1. The irony is obvious.
2. Isn’t that a judgemental statement? Isn’t that supposed to be low-minded?
3. If I reject something I know a lot about, is that the highest form of knowledge?
4. Is is also implying that scientists cannot understand the principles of religion?
_______________________________________________
“When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.” – Wayne Dyer
1. Didn’t he just define himself in the first quote?
________________________________________________
“Conflict cannot survive without your participation.” – Wayne Dyer
1. Yes it can. How does he explain nature? (I forget. There is no conflict in nature.)
________________________________________________
“There is no way to prosperity, prosperity is the way.” – Wayne Dyer
1. So, the only way to get an abundance of food, is to already have an abundance of food.
2. There is no way to a better job, house, and lifestyle, because the way there is to already have a better job, house and lifestyle.
3. It takes money to make money. (He proved that one true.)
_______________________________________________
“Everything you are against weakens you. Everything you are for empowers you.” – Wayne Dyer
1. Then do not take a stand against our attack of Iraq or racism because it will weaken you.
________________________________________________
“A mind at peace, a mind centered and not focused on harming others, is stronger than any physical force in the universe.” – Wayne Dyer
1. How so? How is “stronger” measured?
________________________________________________
“Successful people make money. It’s not that people who make money become successful, but that successful people attract money. They bring success to what they do.” – Wayne Dyer
1. Paris Hilton was successful before attracting money?
_______________________________________________
“Everything is perfect in the universe — even your desire to improve it.” – Wayne Dyer
1. Including war, slavery, bubonic plague, discrimination, lynchings, hunger, famine, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, airplane crashes, strokes, paralysis, Alzheimer’s, AIDS, and so on. It’s all good, folks!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 19th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
And, while I’m at it, a personal comment on the “law of attraction,” since anecdotal observations are accepted as proof here (like “synchronicity”). I am living proof that the “law of attraction” is utter nonsense. The greatest windfalls in my life happen to be the things I spent the absolute least “energy” on. Luck happens, trust me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 19th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
“There is no way to prosperity, prosperity is the way.”
I like this one because I can put anything I want in there. Suppose I don’t care about propserity, but I care about being faithful to some idea. “There is no way to faith, faith is the way.” Suppose I care about baseball, “This is no way to Yankee stadium, Yankee stadium is the way.” Or maybe I’m Dick Cheney and I enjoy war, “There is no way to war, war is the way.” Or maybe I really like Dr. Dyer, “There is no way to Dyer, Dyer is the way.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 19th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Ha! True.
Dave, I thought I recognized the name in the very first post, Wim van Dam from UCSB. I have a good friend who used to talk about Wim. Do you know Brian Fox? He’s the original developer of the Bash shell and of the Emacs editor, and was Richard Stallman’s first hire at MIT.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 21st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
today is my 61st birthday. the older i get, the more positive i become. that is to say the more positive i become that NO ONE has the answer to life, the universe and everything. not even dougls adams who came to the conclusion that the answer was ’42.’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:01 am
Actually, it’s 42.7.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:07 am
Your brain on new age thinking:
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r317/Retromingent/new_age_lady.jpg
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 25th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Wow! Fun stuff. Yes, Zer0, I have thyme to sell, but I don’t think it will help you with your scheduling challenges any more than it’s helped me with mine.
)
I’ve started going to work with my husband 5 days a week (I love it! We work great together,) as the farm stuff is winding down. (Most small farmers have day jobs.) We’re working 10 – 12 hour days at the sign shop and now I have even less time for this blog, as fun as it’s been. I’ve grabbed a few minutes here to try to catch up, but realize it’s pointless for me at this juncture to even attempt to contribute anything intelligent.
Gary, thanks for the Wikipedia referral. I will take time to check that out.
JQP, I love your Dyer quotes and analysis. On those, I believe we see eye to eye. They are both impecably logical and amuzing. I’ve cut and pasted them for future reference, as I’m sure that between my husband and brother-in-law, the subject is bound to come up eventually and you’ve added eloquently to my arsenal of questions that answer themselves. (Assuming the questionee is capable of logical thought, which both of these guys are – at least eventually.
So, I’ll leave you all with this: “Some people see things that are and ask why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask why not? Some people have to go to work and don’t time for all of that….” (George Carlin)
“Thanks guys. It’s been real.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 25th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Wow, great discussion. Zer0, I have thyme to sell, but I don’t think it will help you with your scheduling challenges anymore than it’s helped me with mine. (I do take cash, however.
I’ve started going to work with my husband 5 days a week at the sign shop (I love it! We work really well together;) now that the farm stuff is winding down and we’re putting in 10-12 hour days. (Most small farmers have day jobs, too.) But, I thought I’d “pop in”, (as HavAG8D would say,) on my break and take advantage of the NOT dial-up internet to catch up. However even at that, I realize that it would pointless at this time to try to contribute anything intelligent to the conversation. You all appear to be doing a pretty good job for the most part, so time constraints being what they are, I will have to be “popping out.”
)
Gary- thanks for the Wikipedia reference. I definitely will take time to check that out.
JQP – I love your Dyer quotes and accompanying analysis. Between my husband and brother-in-law, the subject is bound to come up sooner or later, so I’ve cut and pasted them and added them to my ever-growing arsenal of questions that answer themselves – assuming the questionee is capable of logical thought.(Which I think they both are, at least eventually.
Zer0 – keep spending ever minute you can with your little girl. She needs to be the apple of your eye. It will do wonders for her confidence later. You will never regret the time you spend with her. She’s way more important to you than any of us anyway.
So, here’s my parting “shot”: “Some people see things that are and ask why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask why not? Some people have to go to work and don’t have time for all of that…” (George Carlin)
Thanks, guys. It’s been real. (Whatever “real” is…:-) )
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 25th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Ahhh Geez! Another double post. Thought I lost the first one. I actually re-wrote the whole from memory. There goes a perfectly good break. Guess things aren’t all that much better here than with dial-up at home. See? Told you I didn’t have anything intelligent to add to the conversation!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 25th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
A clip from HavAgr8Day’s barbecue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsjb1hKs2Zs
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 25th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Jodee, it was a pleasure. I have a weakness for good insults, and you can dish it out with the best of them. I like it. Best of luck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
i believe that until you are mature enough and ready, you will not appreciate listening to dr. dyer nor will be interested. But until then attacking at dyer with words made up sounding similar with what a 10 year old would say is just a normal response. Im not trying to make fun of you jqp, i do like to see a different viewpoint every once in a while but it would be nice if they were just a bit more logical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 29th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Your ar reel stoopid, jqp, and mabe sume days yu will understnad Wain Dryer. Rite now u ar to dum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 29th, 2007 at 8:45 am
If being mature means listening to dr. dryer, count me as eternally a ten year old. And yes, that is an immature response. Tallyho!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 29th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I’m stunned! I would never had suspected that Metallica would have a strong following in the Appalachians.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 29th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
A positive outlook is healthy–when it is based on realism. A realistic self-image, a realistic assessment of circumstances, a realistic approach to problems, and a realistic view of the future are the components of a healthy life. A positive outlook based on self-delusion is not helpful in any way to solving life’s problems. Seeing problems realistically is the only way they’re actually solved. It won’t help you in retirement to believe you’re successful with loads of cash when you’re not; or that you will receive prosperity by thinking about it a lot because of the so-called “law of attraction.” Or that the universe cares for you personally (but obviously doesn’t give a damn about that fly you swatted) and it would never leave you destitute; that you can forever be a child coddled by the loving universe; that belief alone is enough to make anything real. How is that healthy thinking as opposed to tackling problems with clear minded pursuit?
In fact, this type of fantasy “positivism” is self-impeding. A life built on fantasy and the rationalizing of every difficulty that we’re faced with, is largely filled with empty promises. On the other hand, you cannot go wrong with realizing that the universe is indifferent to you and of no help; that you are responsible for yourself and that the more you accept that you’re an adult, and not an adult-child, the better off you will be. If you stay with new age child-like experience, then you are not growing, which is what new age living is supposed to be all about. If prayer and asking the universe will bring you all the abundance you need, then why struggle at work everyday? There are plenty of examples of Christian Scientists who pray rather than seek a doctor and have let their loved ones die as a result. Ask yourself: are those who practice new age methods, as a group, more prosperous (or benefit more in any way?) than those who don’t? And are the homeless just the universe’s neglected? Why aren’t they benefiting from the loving universe?
New age thinking is not necessary in order to be prosperous, or to obtain abundance, or even to be a helpful citizen. All these things are obtained regularly by millions who simply take action. Everything that Dyer promises can and has been obtained without resorting to any of the silly notions he puts forth. I can guarantee you that you can toss all new age thinking aside and prosper just fine without it, but that you cannot so the same without a sense of realism towards life’s problems. New age thinking is just old age superstition.
If you believe in new age “laws” such as the law of attraction, then show me how to distinguish its validity vs. any ancient belief such as throwing salt over one’s shoulder. There are many who find prosperity in things they happen to be giving the least attention to. If humans have freewill, then coincidence must exist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am
JQP
Glad to see you keeping your cool and not sinking to their level.
Agree with your response.
I’ve been really busy at work lately. But I try to check up on the blog as much as I can.
Sorry to see Jodee go, hope she’ll be back when the time is right.
I’m following the “free energy” quest though. Bought a kit of Bedini’s SSG Energizer. My brother is going to put it together. We will experiment with it and see if the claims are valid.
I try to practice what I preach. I’ll try to prove to myself if something works or not rather than relying on others’ opinions.
I’ll report the results when available.
Take care, keep your cool, and keep an open mind.
I’ll post whenever I have a chance or something worthwhile to say. But I’ll be watching….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 30th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Hi John,
this caught my eye:
“If humans have freewill, then coincidence must exist.”
Can you elaborate on this?
thanks!
~ Kate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Sure, Kate. Since freewill means you can choose to do anything without predetermination, it follows that the sum of human events are random (i.e., not predetermined) and, thus, will undoubtedly create accidental confluences of situations. This is why some find prosperity in what occupies a significant part their lives, and others who do not–those who spend a lifetime unsuccessfully as artists or musicians, for example. (Watch the first month or so of “American Idol” to witness loads of people who believe to their very depths they have talent and will find prosperity in it, who give their goal practically all of their attention, but will never find prosperity in it because no one can stand to listen to them, much less pay to do so–which is exercised freewill on the part of the buying market. And yet others hit the pick-six at the races, win the lottery, of find a lucrative career in a profession they gave little attention to. These are the sums of individual freely decided human actions.
The so-called law of attraction implies you are somehow (supernaturally?) predetermining the actions of others to do something in your self-interest. If that were true, then humans do not have freewill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 30th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Well said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 30th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Questions for mr John Q Public if you would be so kind. I would just like to confirm with myself whether you are repub or democrat, also what religion are you if any, also what do you do for a living, and also could i know what your definition of freewill is? Thank you!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 31st, 2007 at 9:05 am
Actually, I’ve had to answer those questions before in this forum, so they’re scattered about. But for your convenience: I just turned 59, I’m retired but was a computer scientist for IBM and Bell Labs for thirty years, published a number of computer books, am a registered democrat with a conservative view on economics, and a devout atheist. (Perhaps the best way I could categorize my worldview is secular humanist.) I have three degrees (History, CS, and Econ) from SDSU and UCLA.
I am now a pathetic bored old man who still writes a lot of computer code wastes time on pointless arguments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 31st, 2007 at 9:34 am
Metallicajoe, this perfectly reflects my worldview:
Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
Reason, evidence, scientific method – Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
This life – A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 31st, 2007 at 11:37 pm
JQP -
This pisses me off i typed a crap load of stuff and it all got deleted so now i have to type it all again damn but anyways thank you for your info it clears up alot and also i have listened just about all of wayne dyers audio tapes which is hours and hours long but there is one called manifest your destiny im not sure if you are famliar with it but at the end about the last half hour or so he speaks of a way to communicate with god and basically it is 2 20 minute meditations everyday one in the morning and one in the evening. the one in the morning consists of repeating the sound of ahhhhhhhhhhhh and imagining a flow of energy coming from your pelvis and moving out your third eye. the one at night is the same but you use the sound of ommmm. Now i know you are going to say that he is using ancient methods to profit – Lets not start that argument shall we? But anyways i know that you are a person who needs proof which i highly respect so here it is. Wayne says that one should try it for 90 days and to me it sounds as it would take a very well disciplined person to go through with this and you sound like a person who can achieve this if willing. It probably couldnt hurt. I hope you atleast consider this. please write back going to bed goodnight love yall
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 9:23 am
But proof means clinical, not anecdotal. I am familiar with his Manifest book. The problem with the proposition is it is the heads I win, tails you lose logic, so its success cannot be measured. If I don’t get what I attempt to “manifest,” then supposedly the universe thinks I don’t need it or that it’s not its time. How can I possibly tell if it works or not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 10:04 am
I expect that one argument back is that clinical trials cannot prove everything. Agreed! So, in the same vein you asked that the discussion not go to “ancient methods,” I would like it to be precisely understood what many on the side of science are saying regarding this point. Yes, scientific methods cannot prove everything, but they never attempt to take speculation as truth. A perfect example is the reply I received from David Bacon on entanglement. He said it cannot be explained in a classical sense, and that rather than make something up it is accepted as not understood in the sense of our macro world. That is the heart of this point.
The problem with Dyer, Chopra and other espousing new age philosophy is that they speculate in the gaps that science cannot not answer and then sell it as truth. That is in no way moral.
There are many, many questions I will never know the answer to. But I will not take speculation as a substitute.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 10:11 am
A question: why is it important to know if you have a higher purpose and if you can create things through meditation? Why is it not enough to simply define your own purpose and carry it through with action, rather bellowing vowel sounds for hours on end?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
JQP,
popped in
, and was delightfully surprised.
Only scanned the last several of your posts – but they appear to be thoughtful, and responsible-ISH.
Don’t have the time to join in the conversation, AND potentially derail it…
however, I do think if you continue in this vein that you’re going to stimulate a much more interesting conversation. And who knows where that can lead? (Especially if you find someone similar but different, with some time on his/her hands!)
And, if ya’ revert back to the fun in the mud sort of thang, I’ve got some fluffy towels to toss your way
.
XOX,
Pollyanna
(who is still too busy to read the 1913′s classic)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
And for when I get a chance to pop back in next, would love to read your response (if you have the time) to your question:
“Why is it not enough to simply define your own purpose and carry it through with action…”
JQP, how have you defined your (life’s) purpose?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 9:54 pm
JQP, how have you defined your (life’s) purpose?
Yes, to revive the Pet Rock. Dyer’s market is a perfect target to start with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 10:07 pm
I’ve defined my life’s purpose several times – only to have life/external circumstances – ask me to step up to the plate of an even larger purpose than I myself ever imagined. (And we know I have a good imagination
Glad you’re safe from the fires JQP.
Ta Ta
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 10:17 pm
JQP, LOL, i dont even know where to start with you. Question do you read my posts through or just read every other word? LOL j/k But seriously what is your definition of freewill?
Why do you question our importance to know if we have a higher purpose and if we can create things trough meditation? Come on now John i hope you havent already forgotten about your world view reflections. Here let me try to jog your memory – Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general. – Those are your words right? Im sorry my point being that if its possible to grow through meditation then damn it try it or try to understand it dont just try it once or twice and not get it so therefore throw the idea away as false and not have to “waste time” on attempting it or thinking about it. If you can show yourself that it works then why do you need proof? Can you prove that you are having a thought or thinking, or even what kind of thought that you are having? No, only to yourself. But YOU know that you are thinking.
So anyway what the hell mr proof guy? Does the 90 day challenge scare you? Does it sound like to much work? Im such a jerk. But seriously, if you did the meditations for 90 days and found out that communication with God is possible wouldn’t that be proof to you? Thank you love ya
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Metallicajoe, I answered all your questions. The freewill definition was right in front of you: “Since freewill means you can choose to do anything without predetermination…”. I don’t know how to make it plainer.
Why the hell would I want to take up something as pointless as “your challenge?” Why don’t you just ask me to rub bottles and make wishes for 90 days? Magic fairies don’t exist. Grow up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 10:39 pm
JQP, 59 is NOT old. Especially in retired, lil ole pet ROCK years.
I like MetallicaJoe…
Now, g’night Gary. REALLY.
PS No more snoopin’ round my barbecues there J…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 10:48 pm
“Why the hell would I want to take up something as pointless as “your challenge?” Why don’t you just ask me to rub bottles and make wishes for 90 days? Magic fairies don’t exist. Grow up.”
Sounds like fear to me, but what do I know, I’m already fast asleep…….
REALLY
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
John – i know you probably already have a picture of what god should be like which is totally fucked. Sorry. It would make more sense that god is the energy of the whole which is everything put together and a consiousness that is all loving, and does not judge nor punish. Now if there was a chance that you could communicate with god and have proof of that within 90 days….. um what was your question, hmm oh yeah why would you want to do something like that? Oh yeah i forgot, being able to talk with god, woopdee doo why? what would be the importance if you cant prove it? right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 1st, 2007 at 10:57 pm
sorry jqp i didnt mean to make it sound like you believed in god i meant if god really did exist how would you picture him. sorry i know you are atheist
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 am
A proposition: why do you need to believe in a supernatural deity? What purpose does it serve you? Even if there is one? In order for one to be truly moral, the ownership of that decision must rest with the individual. If one acts morally out or fear, self-preservation, or because they want to comply with what they think is the law of the universe, then it’s not really morality, is it?
If a benevolent god, or “source,” is found tomorrow to exist beyond any doubt:
1.If you already behave ethically, then knowing this is a god changes nothing, does it?
2.If you do not already behave ethically, and if knowing there is a god changes your behavior, then is it truly moral and not just self-interest?
If the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view is right and a god of reward and punishment is found to exist:
1.If you already lead a moral life (regardless of any belief in god), then what do you have to worry about?
2.If this god turns out to be truly authoritarian and demands worship not just morality, then why would you ever worship such an immoral deity? To seek salvation?—which is just self-interest created from fear! Hardly moral. In this case, a god actually creates immorality.
The point: You do not need a supernatural being to lead an ethical life and its existence would not create a sufficient motivator to change because the reason for changing would not be based in morality but out of self-preservation. Thus, not only is nothing gained by believing in a god, but morality is diminished as a result.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:11 am
Sounds like fear to me…
In what possible way could you interpret what I said as fear? Ridiculous. I guess Stanford-Binet were not your friends in school.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:34 am
JQP,
.
I liked your post on your beliefs as a secular humanist. (And everyone’s dialogue.)
I actually didn’t stop by to tease you, nor to try to engage you. (To use Jodee’s phrase, I’ve decided I may not be a “good dog” for you after all
Et al:
I spent quite a few moments over the week-end after my last post; asking myself what this had really been about for me. The exact conversation
I had with myself went sort of like “What the heck????”
Yep.
Anyway, Sunday night, amidst the Santa Ana winds and the blowing smoke and ash, I connected some dots.
I had only ever seen Dyer’s INSPIRATION talk (once), knew that he had encouraged the woman who appeared on the show (the one who had survived the genocide) to write a book – and overall, thought the message in the program was extremely significant. (And then had read portions of his INSPIRATION book after it bopped into my life after finding this site.)
Although I initially stumbled here for an entirely different reason, when I finally got to the heart of what it had really been all about for me – it was about that (and my own creative writing that had been done years earlier that connected with the message in the INSPIRATION talk in virtually every way).
As usual,
, I found myself getting out of bed at 4:00 am, with MY dots connected, and writing down something that finally felt complete and worthwhile.
I had wondered whether or not I’d want to link what I wrote to this board (still anonymously)… I felt the text wasn’t an appropriate match to post here – but yet, I thought some individuals, whether they had posted on, or simply read, this board, may be interested.
And so, I stopped by to see where things were.
I’d like to post a link sometime soon.
I don’t think there will be anything very controversial about it. (But you know, one can never know for sure.)
Until then,
back to my regularly scheduled life…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:48 am
Oh JQP,
while I was writing my post, all your and MetallicaJoe’s posts popped up (I all unawares…).
I think MJ can pursue this one with you.
Have a great week-end!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:15 am
“Thus, not only is nothing gained by believing in a god, but morality is diminished as a result.”
In the unlikely event you wanted a quick response from me: I can see where things get all confusing for people when they equate God with punishment and reward. If my spiritual underpinnings were placed there, I’d feel a bit on thin ice.
However, any experiences that I have had, that have transcended the norm and lifted my life to a higher place of growth and morality (but not the sort of morality that is based upon fear of punishment or reward) have been intertwined with an awareness and experience of Something More. I haven’t even sought it out. It’s simply been more the process.
It is funny though… in my work with a charity that supports individuals with severe disabilities – I haven’t come across an atheist volunteer yet (And we have hundreds of volunteers). And no one is allowed to prostletise (please don’t make me spell check that). Their volunteer efforts are focused more upon secular friendship and support.
However, maybe I’m not seeing the atheist volunteers, because they’re all helping to rebuild New Orleans (like you have done
.
It’s a good thing I do have to go to work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:27 am
Related news:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-my-fellow-atheists/
Excerpt:
“My point, with respect to the term “atheist” (or any other), is that the use of a label invites a variety of misunderstandings that are harmful to our cause. There are many people in this country who do not believe in God and who understand that there is conflict between science and religion, but who do not feel the slightest inclination to join an atheist group or to label themselves in opposition to religion. These people are “atheists” by any measure, but you will never meet them at one of our conventions. They have read the writings of the “new atheists,” sent us letters and emails of support, are quite fond of criticizing religion whenever the opportunity arises, but they have no interest whatsoever in joining a cult of such critics. And there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
I have a question for all. I will begin with a statement:
.
“Everything is as it should be.”
.
I have always found that a comforting thought. In fact, atheist, faithful or seeker, we can all find this a comforting thought. Here’s why:
If there is a God (as we conceive it), then everything is under control. His plan is unfolding, His will is done for me, for you, for all. We have nothing to fear for God is in charge and will help us on our way. Everything is as it should be.
If there is no God, then the Universe is unfolding as it must according to the laws of Nature and Physics. It changes, grows, evolves and becomes more complex as it does and there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do about it. So, whether willed or random, planned or meandering, everything is as it should be. Consider that.
.
Now, my question:
.
if everything is as it should be and, ultimately, we can change nothing but our own small lives (whether by free will or willed freedom), then why does it matter if there is or is not a God?
If there is, we can’t overrule God, now, can we? What will be will be. We have free will but can affect only our own soul’s fate. We can not alter God’s plan. If there isn’t God then we are no more than organic virtual particles that exist momentarily, spin left or right, are large or small, fast or slow, weak or strong, but eventually must disappear. So again, what is the difference between God or no God in our lives? It only becomes important in the “after” life. We survive, we succeed, we live or we do not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 am
Excellent questions, Gary. Thank you for contributing in an academic sense.
Since the folks in Dyer’s corner seem opposed or unwilling to engage in academic dialogue (consistently they steer the talk to anecdotes and first person and, thus, take me along with it occasionally.), I will take their position as devil’s advocate. (I have sufficiently read their material for too many years. But I read a lot of garbage for amusement. For example, every part of me hates Ann Coulter for so many reasons, but I read her books with an interest in how she constructs her arguments. In order to not contribute to her pocketbook, I check them out from the library.)
So, these are not my views but an attempt to engage this line of thought.
Suze Orman describes the conundrum of a guiding universe with freewill as you controlling one of a pair of wings, and the universe the other. Relating this to your point “if everything is as it should be and, ultimately, we can change nothing but our own small lives…”, the new age view is that freewill occurs on a small scale but collapses on a larger scale. (The next sentence is about to wipe out what little, if any, credibility I ever had with DB when I attempted to take up the baton to argue for rationalism.) It is likened to the moment when the wave collapses between the quantum world and the macro world. That is, new agers see the sum of freewill as contained and guided by a higher force, but not necessarily controlled.
So, breaking it down: “if everything is as it should be,” meaning the world is predetermined; “we can change nothing,” the rebuttal is we can make change but it is influenced not controlled; “then why does it matter if there is or is not a God?” Because the new age god is a connecting tissue in humanity, not a controlling force.
“we can’t overrule God, now, can we?” The new age view holds that we are not separate from God but all little elements that collectively make up God; but over the progress of history that a particular vision will be realized. So, in the new age view overruling God doesn’t make sense because you’re saying your overruling yourself.
In summary: your argument pits freewill against predetermination. New agers will argue the two work in cooperation. Basically, it’s not that the ultimate outcome of human history is predetermined by God, but that there is a collective humanity that is God and it is gently guiding humanity towards a vision.
That’s the best I can do. These words are making me ill now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
Things are getting interesting again
JQP, I agree with your post that starts “A proposition: why do you need to believe in a supernatural deity?”
I think that those who have a need are lacking the belief in themselves. They don’t know themselves and their own potential. For them it is the easier path to take, because it relieves them from responsibility of their own life. If something goes wrong then it was God’s will, not their own fault.
It’s like working for a company or being self employed. If the company fails then the employee can say that the leaders made bad decisions and it was not their fault, they couldn’t do anything about it. If a self employed fails it is because of their bad decisions so they can’t blame anyone else. Of course those who don’t want to take responsibility for their own life will look for other causes of their failure.
Although I don’t believe in God, I still think that we are more than biological machines. There is another layer of ourselves that we don’t fully understand or experience. I don’t know what to call it, soul, spirit, or whatever, but there is something non-physical under the physical shell that can’t be measured or experienced directly. But this doesn’t necessitate the need for a God.
If someone makes the argument that if there is a spirit there must be a God, then they would also have to believe that there is a real Mother Nature because of all the living things on this planet, and we have to believe and worship this Mother Nature.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
The “supernatural” is no more than that yet to be understood, just as viral diseases were once thought to be the result of hexes and curses. If a name is needed, doesn’t ‘God’ work as good as any?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
“The “supernatural” is no more than that yet to be understood…”
So, the presumption is that you know the supernatural exists, but others have not discovered it yet. To use your analogy, if this were pre-Louis Pasture right now you would be telling us that you already know bacteria exists but undiscovered.
You need to support that claim. How do you know this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
“The “supernatural” is no more than that yet to be understood…”
So, Max, what you are saying is that it is OK to believe and worship something that is not yet understood? Wouldn’t it make more sense to be skeptical of something that wasn’t understood?
What value is there in believing and worshiping without understanding?
I think you need to clarify your statement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Wow. I am so excited. I can’t help myself.
Gary, you wrote a really sincere, wonderful post. I appreciated it! And JQP and MAX and Zero are all engaged in a really awesome discussion. Man, can you guys cut me a little slack and let me add a few thoughts? I mean, I thought I was back here to check things out and add a link… but…
“Everything is as it should be.”
I love that, and I believe it to be true.
(At this moment.)
I am going to try not to be too anecdotal – however, as I’ve never been one to “follow” someone else’s thoughts, my tendency has always been toward needing to EXPERIENCE things myself.
(Yes, I am a writer – who had a quote on her high school folder that read ‘Books are fine in their own way, but they are a mighty bloody substitute for life.”??)
Anyway, I also don’t always have time to test everything in a lab (nor do I believe everything can be tested in a lab) – thus, my need to reference things in anecdotal ways.
Religious doctrines, group definitions, being defined as part of a specific “spiritual community” – has never been a real option for me emotionally. Anything that EXCLUDES others, doesn’t work for me. (And, truthfully, that includes anything that excludes atheists.)
I don’t believe that anybody has to believe in God (although, I obviously like to nudge people in that direction, but nudges are different). Nor do I believe that anybody has to believe in a specific type of God. (And if you study most major religions, they will in fact say that ultimately, God is truly unknowable – far beyond what we humans can comprehend. Thus, the religious tenant to not create physical images of God.)
So if God is ultimately unknowable, then why even consider such spiritual questions?
(PLEASE don’t have high hopes of me comprehensively answering this question – even a little bit.)
In my observation, people often come to their beliefs in God through a variety of ways. Some because it is comfortable, and a family expectation. Some because they desire a higher power – something above and beyond their own decision making abilities – to guide them (I’m not saying this is a wrong reason). And then there is a third group – the one that I relate to the most.
Sometimes, at different times in life, sh*t happens
. I mean, things happen that defy anything that our rational minds and inquiring hearts can find an answer for in any place other than the “wisdom literature.”
I didn’t always have the beliefs that I have now.
My belief in “something more” didn’t arise out of thinking about it. It came from experiences that essentially knocked my socks off.
I don’t want to get too much into the psychic realm, because I don’t believe that is a main point for this blog. But it’s hard to avoid completely.
There are so many charlatons out there. So many silly people claiming to do silly things to make a living or gain notoriety. And then there are other people – who simply have psychic experiences. (This is where I’d love for anyone interested on this blog to look into the subject more scientifically – it can and has been done, and continues to be.)
Anyway, I gave a fairly light example of a psychic experience involving email. However, there have been many other examples that are much more meaningful. And in these examples, the psychic experiences almost always propel me to learn, grow and assimilate life’s lessons much more quickly. It truly does feel as if I’m trying to be taught lessons. (And sometimes I just want to have a bath and eat cheesy popcorn
I referenced before about having a defined purpose for my life at several different times – and about life/life circumstances propelling me past that purpose. Or at least re-directing in a way that I view now as far preferable.
So how do we come to terms with psychic experiences that seem to be very … educational and instructive? That seem to create experiences that are so far out of normal frames of reference in regards to typical experiences of coincidence?
And that propel one’s life forward in ways that one sometimes can’t even believe?
I do believe in God. Mostly, because if I had to say what I believe is the bottom line purpose in my life – I would say it is growth (and trying to keep up with my growth lessons). And all of the experiences that I have had regarding not only psychic things, but also experiences in the realm of death and dying (with lovely human beings who have shared some of the most intimate phases of their lives with me) – all point in the same direction.
(When one works with people in the later stages of life, one often sees and witnesses things that are really unrecognized in most areas of society – but experiences that are available to anybody who wants to do the work for any length of time – or to do some reading.)
Anyway, I can’t over-simplify my beliefs. The reason my friend coined the phrase “over-analysis leads to paralysis” was because I can be WAY too analytical. (And extremely righty brained too. Go figure.)
But spiritually, it isn’t important to me to TRY to believe in God. I simply do, completely, at this point – as nothing else makes any SENSE.
I’ve had a friend since first grade who was always an atheist. I’d say she very much believed in JQP’s secular humanist points.
However, decades later (just recently), because of concrete experiences she has had – she no longer can believes that way. (Sort of like Jodee’s Christianity reversed – she feels she seen and witnessed things that are too concrete to view the world through that perspective anymore.)
I wish that everyone on this planet could have experienced just one specific experience that changed my life completely. And, pretty much, like dominoes, changed everyone’s life around me as well.
I hoped long ago on this blog that I might get around to sharing it (before I blew it so early with my way too ambiguous antlered buck story). However, it just seemed like it would sound like a magic trick – and in the end, be of no value.
Well. We are all different. Different tastes, needs, ways of understanding and experiencing the world.
For some reason, this thought comes to mind: if a person who is colorblind lacks trust, might they think that everybody around them is having fun at their expense? You know, a global conspiracy to make them think they see colors wrong? And do they really anyway? Or do they see them in their own way, as we do our’s?
Maybe we are not all supposed to have the same experiences in this life. Maybe our brains and souls are not wired for that.
At the same time, if one doesn’t have circumstances knocking them over the head and propelling them, almost against their own will, to believe in Something More – and if they have a desire to delve into the possibility (as one might delve into any possibility) – then maybe as MetallicaJoe mentioned, doing something like meditating may be a way to approach the subject, IF someone is interested. I’ve never meditated, but it certainly seems to be a tested method of accessing one’s inner wisdom…?
I do like “Everything is as it should be.”
(Btw, my link, when I do link it – has NOTHING to do with psychicness btw. Collective sigh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
“I am noticing a difference between male and female posts: about 17 paragraphs.”
Woah.
I’m going to go sit in the time out chair for a while now
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Like i said JQP your idea of what god would be like if he exists is FUCKED!!! God would be nothing like the jealous punishing tyrant that you picture it would be so of course believing in a bullshit angry punishing god just makes things more worse than not believing in god at all. So you keep trying to rip on god go ahead keep doing it because its very uninteresting i think we are all past the idea that believing in a angry violent god is not good. Again what im saying is i deeply believe that god is all loving, does not judge nor punish and is NOT a person nor is a gender – everything in the universe is made of energy and everything is connected in that way and i believe that this is what god is. And if there was a way that we could communicate with that consiousness then theres no question that we out to look into it. But you go ahead just sit there with your thumb in your ass and call it all bullshit so you never have to think about it again cuz we all now thats the more easier way to go, right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:02 am
I guess the meditation and manifesting is doing you a lot of good, Metallicajoe. It obviously has created the calm, loving, centered, not to mention articulate, individual we see before us now.
I suggest you go blow some more energy out your third eye. (By the way, it’s “chakra.”)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:54 am
i think we are all past the idea that believing in a angry violent god
Really? Then let me refer you to a post in this blog dated 3/4/2007:
“29Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver … 30The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”
Sounds like a tyrant to me. In fact, your all-loving god notion is a minority view in the world. Perhaps your limited reading has not introduced you to Christianity yet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 am
Although sometimes the “insults” do fly on this site – I have to say, JQP finally showcased his sense of humor for me in his post after my last set of posts; something about “well, somebody else is sucking all the wonderful and extraordinary adjectives out of the air and leaving little for the rest of the class.”
MetallicaJoe, I’m just trying to tell you – don’t get TOO offended if you can help it.
Well, a consultant’s work is… often on saturdays! And so, once again – I am off.
(If I weren’t, I’d still be sitting in my time out chair
.
_________________________________
About the link I want to post – maybe today?
This week-end when I have a moment?
…It isn’t about convincing, or religion, or psychic experiences.
(Trying to transition back a bit to my original intent to potentially share that link; because when I finally connected those dots for myself, it was so helpful.)
me
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 am
Clarification: when I said that a belief in a god diminishes morality, I was specifically including the idea of an all loving god.
The idea came from this: it was cited many times in the wake of Mother Teresa’s revelation that she had questioned the existence of God, that her morality was strengthened by the fact that she carried on good works anyway. She was not doing it for God, she was doing it for herself. You see, if morality comes from your own decision and not because you think it is the “way” of an all-loving god, then it is truly moral. That was the point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 am
I’m going to elaborate on my last point even more: If you believe in any god, of any kind, then your reasons for being moral are suspect. Only the individual who acts morally but believes in no god can be fully trusted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:55 am
O no. I’m still here.
I specifically avoided going further in my discussion regarding Mother Teresa, because I feel she is so far beyond me in her own growth, that I just don’t want to take a chance of profaning the sacred by putting my words in her mouth.
The same goes for God really.
I wanted to try to be somewhat clearer on my beliefs than in the past though… (Oh, where can somebody sell me some time??? There would never be enough time really to make my beliefs very clear, because they are still evolving really. And in that area, I just don’t consider myself the teacher or even a teacher. More a discusser of experience. Of the ‘something more.’)
eep.
Anyway, I agree with you JQP – I don’t believe that true morality can ever exist when there’s some sort of benefit/loss ratio equated with it.
Including one of acceptance or of being loved.
Not sure how you’re equating that with the above topics; but that’s probably because I am rushing too much now.
(Ooops, fell out of my chair
Owww.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
JQP -
You sarcasticly say that the meditations are doing me alot of good? I dont recall saying that i do the meditations .. oh yeah cuz i didnt. I love it when people assume stuff. And by the way christianity has nothing to do with an all loving god and neither do any of the organized religions. When i say all loving god i mean ALL LOVING GOD – you do know what that means right? Let me rephrase – I would like to hope that we would all agree that the angry punishing god we see in the bible and in other religion books could not exist simply cuz it makes no sense and probably the reason why you are not religious which is fine im not religious either but still believe in an all loving consiousness of all energy as a whole. Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
My wife and I just got back from an evening of bar hopping in Santa Barbara (State street). (A luxury you get after your kids are grown.) So, I’m in no mood for academic anything. (I’m a happy drunk.) Best to all, and to all a good night!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 4th, 2007 at 4:37 am
Wow, this is PERFECT TIMING.
Might I even call it divine timing??
Gosh that was a cute post above! JQP, a happy drunk (and perhaps his wife a bit tipsy too) – in a lovely area like Santa Barbara. Hurray!!!
*********************
Well, I’m going to try to post my link.
A few disclaimers:
I have never met anyone associated with this blog – EVER. Nobody knows me as a person, and I know nobody else as anything but blog posts.
I am not connected to anybody or anything related to this blog – beyond myself.
K?
So anything I write in my link has to do with me, only me. And that’s pretty much the whole kit n’ kaboodle.
(Wait, I’m still smiling over JQP being a happy drunk!!)
Anyway,
please also know -
to anyone who chooses to check out the link – this is simply me connecting my own dots in terms of what the heck I was doing here to begin with.
WARNING to the men: It uses the word BUTTERFLY quite frequently (!) and summarizes a manuscript that could either be made concrete (for a picture book for little ‘uns), or more abstract (as an all-ages type of thing). Thus, if you are looking to read something highly academic, or, more importantly – MANLY – do not, I repeat, DO NOT – follow this link.
However, you can always skim things the way that I do
. Then it’s never soooo bad.
Alrighty, to all those I’ve posted with, if you want to know my wishes for you (and you don’t mind
feminine writing) – then maybe give it a try.
I think there’s supposed to be a lot of other disqualifiers, (like, oh yes, it’s WORDY, and I didn’t do spell check on a couple of pages), but I can’t think of what they are at the moment, thus I will be daring.
However, not that daring.
I’m posting this, and then in the next, I’ll try to post the link (don’t want to lose all this explanation if it doesn’t work).
‘N to all a good night! (Or morning, as your schedule may have it)…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 4th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Oh yes…
if the link doesn’t work, you can always try going to Live Journal. My journal name is:
havagr8day. And the journal has only one entry, entitled: Dots.
I chose a “Plus” membership – which means you can have a free blog, but Live Journal places it’s own advertisements around it (completely unrelated to me – or you if you get a plus account too
)
Alrighty then, the link:
havagr8day – Dots
Hmmm. That doesn’t look like a link.
Well, that’s what the link says – except it’s a LINK, and it’s blue. If someone knows how to change that for me, feel free.
Otherwise, I’ll leave it up to the fates until a more simple answer drop into my lap
.
Very Best of Wishes.
me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 4th, 2007 at 11:08 am
To insert a link, use a fully qualified URL. That is, copy/paste the whole URL from your browser including the “http://” part.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 4th, 2007 at 11:56 am
I have caught up on reading the posts. I am picking some low-hanging fruit to respond to, but that does not mean I missed your post. Actually, I’m still pondering a number of points others have made.
HAGDS, you said, ”I specifically avoided going further in my discussion regarding Mother Teresa, because I feel she is so far beyond me in her own growth, that I just don’t want to take a chance of profaning the sacred by putting my words in her mouth.”
This means you do have a value system; and that you do make critical judgments. In Dyer’s latest about the Tao, he goes to great lengths to say he listens without judgment. In fact, you yourself said earlier in this blog, ”Mother Teresa said something to the effect of “I don’t judge, because during the time I am judgeing, I can’t be loving.”.
But if you put Mother Teresa on a pedestal, you have a value system; you value some actions over others. Therefore, it follows that you judge some actions as low, as well. The idea of suspending critical judgment of others means to suppress an important component of our humanity. If you judge no one, then Hitler has equal footing with Mother Teresa.
Everyone has a value system. Therefore, everyone makes critical judgments of others. Dyer creates reams of critical commentary on conventional society, movies, anything with conflict including political debates and even stand-up comedians, and he out-and-out stereotypes and rails on authoritarianism in “How to Get What You Really, Really, Really Want.” In fact, if you study the evolution of his writing you can see only applies being non-judgment when it comes to his world views, but readily accepts criticism of things he disagrees with.
Being non-judgmental has horrific consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 4th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
A suggestion on debate structure. It is difficult to converse when statements are in first person and do not form claim, support, significance constructs. I’m not trying to be pedantic, but helpful.
When someone claims, “I think that God is all loving…”, the problem is the first person voice places the authority of the claim with the writer. It generally makes a stronger argument to place the claim with something other than the writer; like a logical argument, or a reference. Thus, “It is most likely that God is all loving…” (a claim), followed by the logic that supports your claim, gives the statement more authority because you are saying the evidence is in my argument, not just because I am saying it. Finally, the argument should state why your claim is significant.
Again, I’m not trying to be condescending, but just trying to pass on some experience I have gained in debate. It appears that few here have had debate training.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 4th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
JQP,
I’m still just so happy.
What I wrote over at Live Journal (actually wrote it the 22nd of oct.) is what I really wanted to express.
I really do skim a lot of life – and try to release what I “judge” as not helpful, and embrace what I feel is true and helpful.
For me, regarding Dr. Wayne Dyer, and his writings, I could really only post on what I’ve seen (the couple things I’ve referenced). And I haven’t had, or been able to give, the time to researching all that I haven’t.
Thus, I would be your worst candidate for a debate
.
THANK YOU for giving the suggestion about how to post a link. It will make very happy when I can do it.
(Right now Live Journal is trying to correct itself – it says I haven’t posted an entry when I have {it’s underneath stuff that tells me how to post one
– so I’ll try to post that link
when the situation is corrected.)
Anyway, that link will hopefully summarize why I enjoyed my journey through all of this with all of you – and it does also give my feelings (including judgements) about the INSPIRATION tape.
But I think it’s MUCH more appropriate to post as a link – in every way.
Best wishes!
me
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 4th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
And maybe this is helpful in terms of my take on judgement?
When Mother Teresa was alive, I believe there was some controvercy regarding her accepting financial charitable assistance from individuals who did not appear to be very morally strong.
From what I recall, her (my interpretation from when she was alive and spoke for herself) take on the subject was that she would accept help for the people she was trying to help from almost anybody – essentially. Because to not accept it, would be to potentially harm or deprive those she was trying to assist (including, if I remember correctly, the very people who were struggling morally).
Did she judge actions? Well, in my observation, from watching her own stellar actions (in my humble opinion) – yes. But the way I always understood her writings was that she held herself accountable for what she knew (And in my opinion again, hardly ever gave herself credit for any of it). And allowed … God … to hold others accountable for what they did or did not know or understand.
Anyway, if ever there was a human being that lit up the planet for me – it was she. But see, that’s where I’m all anecdotal again. You all want to have an academic debate, and I just want to speak from my heart.
Thus, the link!
That’s where the happy ending is for me.
And I’m a sucker for happy endings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 4th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
http://havagr8day.livejournal.com/728.html
Well, even if that doesn’t work as a link, it should work if one feels like copying and pasting it in the URL thingy doo
. I tested it, and it worked for me.
(THANKS for that advice JQP!)
AND, if you choose to read it, and feel like I’m only addressing a small portion of what has been discussed here – I think that’s true.
For ME, (to slightly co-opt DB’s quote for a different purpose…) the drama (ie; discussion topics) on this forum were just toO big for ME to do any sort of justice; especially given the limited amount of time I had.
And I understand JQP’s desire to have a focused discussion and specifically debate points – all of which for me, and the way my brain and soul are wired, would take SEVERAL
(!) lifetimes.
(Joke about the lifetimes!! Just tryin’ to play. I mean, it could… but, just not sure if it’s an OPTION!!)
But like I said, I do understand it.
So here’s that link…
And cheers to all of you!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 4th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
HAGDS, my suggestion about argument structure really has to do with expression of what’s in the heart, and less about true debate. (I’m suggestion stealing from the pages of debate technique.) If you have something to say, then isn’t a strong articulation, by definition, more of a reflection of what’s in your heart than not? That is, word choice and flow can paint your picture with either vivid colors or obscure opaqueness. When one strings together lots of adjectives, typically indicating the lack of a strong verb, they tend to lose the reader and, thus, what is in your heart does not come across as well as it could.
If one has something worth saying, isn’t it also worth saying it well? But it’s just a suggestion. This blog is not a debate forum, so it’s not important. But I think you could make a stronger connection with your readers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 12:12 am
JQP,
my only real hope in my posts were for them to be natural. Since I was posting anonymously, with real time constraints, I wanted my self expression to be pretty transparent.
- I wasn’t trying to have readers. I stumbled into this site. And INITIALLY it was sort of the opposite – I was struggling to preserve my time so that I could devote my time to the writing where I do actually have ‘readers.’
- This site turned out to be a bit more complex (truly) then I understood it to be at first glance.
- I juggle quite a bit, and this seemed to take on an unexpected life of it’s own.
Especially when Dyer’s INSPIRATION book was out of place, and just above my friend’s book at the store…
- But I felt very quickly, that whatever I thought I might be able to contribute to this forum – was not a very realistic goal.
- And no, I don’t necessarily agree that strong articulation is a better reflection of what’s in one’s heart.
I think it depends upon what’s in one’s heart.
And what’s in the heart of the person with whom you’re communicating.
*************
Well Mr. JQP, I definitely know in my heart that you and I have different paths to travel.
(Not that they can’t intersect from time to time however…)
But I know that I’m not meant to stay and debate Dyer’s writings. It isn’t my style.
I haven’t read or seen work of his that I have felt was irresponsible (however, my exposure has been somewhat limited). Also, from the very beginning, I commented on a blurb that he wrote – about experiencing ‘falls from grace,’ before he ‘synthesized material to a higher level.’ (loose quote.)
Thus, if I HAD read something that he had written (which I thought truly reckless), I honestly would have tried to talk to him about it – possibly in person/email/etc. Believe it or not, that would seem MUCH simpler, quicker, and more meaningful to me than discussing it here.
(But I’m NOT undermining your desire to do so. Differences are okay in my book.)
The bottom line is: I can’t get my mind around how I can address anything significant in here (responsibly) with the time that I have available.
However, I do still seem to want to be a little catalyst occasionally
. And a friend. 
(Even as a little catalyst, my heart tells me I’m nudging y’all in a good direction.)
But mostly, this week-end, I wanted to leave that link.
(And I wanted it to be the unvarnished 4 AM version.)
I’m happy with the link.
It stays within the parameters of what I have seen and experienced.
And I was also hoping to leave it in a positive sort of way.
I’m also happy with the feeling of peace I feel between you and me.
I reached that place.
I hope you did too.
Thanks for making my day with your happy tipsy post. It was the BEST.
And thanks again for helping me to post the link.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 8:37 am
“The “supernatural” is no more than that yet to be understood…”
So, the presumption is that you know the supernatural exists, but others have not discovered it yet. To use your analogy, if this were pre-Louis Pasture right now you would be telling us that you already know bacteria exists but undiscovered.
You need to support that claim. How do you know this?
Comment by JohnQPublic — 11/2/2007
“The “supernatural” is no more than that yet to be understood…”
So, Max, what you are saying is that it is OK to believe and worship something that is not yet understood? Wouldn’t it make more sense to be skeptical of something that wasn’t understood?
What value is there in believing and worshiping without understanding?
I think you need to clarify your statement.
Comment by Zer0 — 11/2/2007
You have both (incorrectly) applied your own conceptual paradigm of ‘supernatural’. In this case I refer not to “ghoulies and ghosties and long-legged beasties” or to angels and demons. I refer to that which is as yet unknown yet from which we see some effect in the world. For example, bacteria, once unknown, but which had observable results (disease). We still see effects we can not explain. What should we call their causative agent until we know its true identity?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 8:40 am
P.S. Happy Guy Fawkes Day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Max, I didn’t define any interpretation of supernatural. My question is how can you already know what is unknown–regardless of what it is?
That is because you’re saying there is a supernatural–again, regardless of what it is. I contend there is no evidence of anything existing beyond the natural.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Max, why don’t we call it as it is? Unknown causes or unidentified agents or similar. Why do we have to call it God (another unknown and not understood or maybe non-existent phenomenon)?
Should we call flying saucers God? I think UFO is a better and more accurate name.
“God” is already a very misused and abused word.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Max, you do understand that “supernatural” means “beyond nature,” correct? That is, it specifically means what is non-physical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I just clicked on the ad for The Final Theory.
Has anybody read this book? Any opinions?
I have to check it out
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
In case you don’t see the ad here is the link
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/?gclid=CNOjsoa3xo8CFRpdagodL3hGYw
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“…unknown yet from which we see some effect in the world”
That is in incorrect definition. Bacteria are natural, not supernatural.
From the dictionary:
“not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; “supernatural forces and occurrences and beings”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Zer0, do you actually have any professional or academic credentials to support your points on science? Or are you just another self-appointed academician? You can’t understand partial differential equations without training in calculus, for example. If you’re exploring physics, then go get trained in physics first. Then your criticisms will at least be grounded in understanding.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I am aware of the definition of ‘supernatural”. I am saying that this is what it is called by us UNTIL we understand it is, after all, natural. I believe we’re all on the same page here.
-
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
Arthur C. Clark
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
“I am saying that this is what it is called by us UNTIL we understand it is…
Your statement assumes that it exists to be discovered. How do you know it exists to eventually be discovered?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
This is the third time I’m trying to post.
I apologize if suddenly all of them post.
JQP,
Here is my info
B.S. Engineering, CSUF, 1990
After graduation started a company designing and manufacturing passive Surround Sound devices (my own design)
Have worked for industrial automation company designing conveyor and bottling systems and doing PLC programing.
Have worked for a tool manufacturing company designing innovative hand tools (several patents)
Currently working for a water conservation company as a Senior Development Engineer. Doing solid modeling using SolidWorks, doing FEA (Finite Element Analysis) and CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics). One of our products is a waterfree urinal system that saves 40,000 gallons of water per year per urinal. We are in 20 countries and spreading.
I’m a problem solver and “out of the box” thinker. This is what they pay me for.
Maybe I should have become a computer programmer like you and figured out all the workings of the universe by typing code all day instead of dealing with it hands on
Contrary to many, I did not let my education or my career turn me into a closed and narrow minded follower who accepts without questioning anything that is fed to them.
I think once again you made an erroneous assumption. You tend to do that a lot I’ve noticed. You think your credentials give you the insight to judge people and question their knowledge and understanding.
I’m curious though, which of my posts got you so upset?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Good, Zer0. I wondered if your consistent attack on the institution of science was based anything other than your own opinion. You seemed to define yourself more for what you rejected as a whole. After all, we can’t all be surgeons by self-appointment. Someone else must agree to make it so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Looks like it finally posted.
JQP, that was just a partial listing in technical and scientific area.
I have also designed and built from scratch a 3 wheel car (actually it’s registered as a motorcycle). It has two wheels in front and one in the back. The rear drive system is a Ninja 900 motorcycle with automotive tire. I’m going to turn it into an electric car next year.
I’ve designed and built a 30′ diameter geodesic dome using PVC pipe and standard connection. This was after I read Buckminster Fuller’s Synergy back in college days.
I could go on and on, but the whole point is that I have purposely exposed myself to a wide spectrum of information and experiences to stay open minded.
I hope this shows enough credentials for me to express scientific or other opinions on this blog.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 5th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Hey all, just FYI, this blog is now being hosted over at http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff. I’m leaving the archives on dabacon.org for now, but if anyone reads this thread actually reads the main blog…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 6th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Interesting comments on closed mindedness. I have to agree with DB’s early comment that it’s ok to be close minded. Actually, it’s a sign of experience. If you are forever open to anything, then you’ve learned nothing. As I found things to be objectionable or ridiculous, I became closed minded to them, as I’m sure you have. That is experience.
“Maybe I should have become a computer programmer like you and figured out all the workings of the universe by typing code all day instead of dealing with it hands on”
Well, I can’t let that one go. I’ve travelled the world extensively. Lived in the U.K. for a while, and spent a month in Irian Jaya (that’s Western Papua for you) meeting with tribes of the longhouses of Baliem Valley. (Participated in a Sago root ritual once. Weird. If you’re interested in that sort of thing, it was arranged by Outer Edge Expeditions.)
So, just to correct you on that point, I’ve had some real world experience. Actually, there is a difference between being a computer architect and a programmer. But that’s okay, all I wanted to know if you were just another bonehead ragging on anything institutional or established. I don’t think you are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 6th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Here it is. I highly recommend this to anyone adventurous:
http://www.outer-edge.com/indonesia.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 6th, 2007 at 11:36 am
And, lastly, Zer0 reassure me this was not a project for the Burning Man festival: I’ve designed and built a 30′ diameter geodesic dome using PVC pipe and standard connection
I have reasons for asking that. 1. Those are known projects at Burning Man, 2) I can have no respect for anyone who would attend burning man and then claim to be serious about…anything. Now, I don’t suspect that of you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 6th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Oh, Zer0, something crossed my mind regarding open mindedness and our recent thread. When I was in Irian Jaya, I learned of a tribe, the Goilala, that has a particular fear of ancestral ghosts stealing, of all things, wristwatches given to them by Westerners. So, they hide all their watches in bushes. Their belief is that ghosts are attracted to things relating to time. (This is not something isolated in their culture, but so prevalent as to become part of their religion.) Are you open minded to that? Do you think ghosts have uses for wristwatches? Don’t you think the ghosts could find the watches in the bushes? If you’re not open to this idea, why not? Because I can show you a few thousand people who are.
Oh, then there is the religion of the Yali tribe. They once had their women cook and eat captured young girls from neighboring tribes (as did the Miyanmin) because they believed it would keep them young. Are you open to this idea, too? We’re not talking about some sick individual such as Jeffery Dahmer, but an actual belief system with many followers. Certainly, you would not reject that idea out of hand without giving it a try first, would you?
So, if you reject those ideas as superstition, then what criteria do you apply here that you do not apply some of your own supernatural leanings? Is it based on simply one idea being more appealing to you than another, or is it based on something more?
And for the Dyer crowd, I’m willing to bet that you cannot come up with one reason why a belief in an all-loving god is any more valid than what these tribesmen believe other than you just think so.
I am truly curious how believers in the supernatural think that their own belief is based in truth, but that beliefs found in remote parts of the world like the ones I cited are not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
JQP,
My remark about computer programmer was just my way of biting you back
I very well know that you are a well read, educated, and traveled man, but if I’m bitten I bite back
Regarding the Burning Man: I don’t know what that is and don’t even want to spend time Goggling it.
The dome that I built was in my back yard. I put a pond in it and had all kinds of tropical plants. It was a great place to relax watching the fish and listening to the sounds of the waterfall.
I don’t agree with you and DB regarding experiences and closed mindedness. With experience I become more cautious and doubtful but I never close the door completely. I always leave a small crack open. You never know….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 6th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Thanks, Zer0. Good to hear you’re not a burning man participant. (Your propensity for corporate conspiracy theories together with make-shift plastic geodesic domes made me wonder.)
I responded to the programming remark so it is known there was a time I did get off my ass and my worldview was not built from a keyboard. Your comment was warranted, though.
Conspiracy theorists also intrigue me. The fundamental interest is this: if large-scale conspiracies are so tight-lipped and well run, how is it that they think they are of the few who know? Why do think consider themselves as an elite minority and everyone else blind? It is kind of like Noam Chomsky going on about governmental suppression of information–in his published books! There’s a comical irony to it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 6th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
JQP,
Very good and valid questions. Too bad I don’t have the time to answer right now. But I promise that I will.
In the mean time, what do you think about the questions and answers at this link
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html
Have you read the book? Are you going to?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I had not heard of the book before. But your author, Mark McCutcheon, is railed on in physics forums. Doesn’t sound like he’s got a whole of credibility. (Credibility matters a lot. I hate self-appointed scientists.) Here’s a representative sample:
““The Final Theory” (by Mark McCutcheon)
This book is “not even wrong” (to use a famous quote of physicist Pauli). I’ll explain what that is supposed to mean.
A meaningful statement can be said to be either correct, or wrong. “The Final Theory” is full of so many meaningless and wrongful statements, that I consider it to be not even wrong. And I cannot consider it as being anything else.
First of all, it does not contain any valid physical arguments. Plainly speaking, it misrepresents current theory again and again. For example, it argues that gravity violates the law of conservation of energy, because it causes kinetic energy. As an example, the author asks: “How does it [gravitation] cause falling objects and orbiting planets without drawing on any known power source?”. This is simply explained by the fact that it is the kinetic plus the potential energy which is conserved – a falling object decreases its potential energy as it increases its kinetic energy.
Secondly, the author confuses the basic concepts of work and energy (which you normally learn about in elementary school). For example, it is postulated that if you want to move an object, you must spend energy, and that this is the only way how energy may be invested. This is obviously wrong. When you try to push a wall, no work is done – since the displacement is zero – but surely it costs energy!
Thirdly, the book relies on what one could call “common sense appeals”. The author seem to think that science shouldn’t be mysterious or hard to understand. From common sense we have learned many “important” things: that women are less intelligent than men, that homosexuality is “unnatural”, that the earth is flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, that airplanes cannot fly etc. etc. Serious scientist never use common sense as a guiding principle.
Amazingly, the book argues that modern physics – including the pillars of the special and general theories of relativity, and quantum mechanics – is incorrect. The actual situation is that the validity of the special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics has been experimentally established beyond any reasonable doubt; and there are numerous positive tests of the general theory of relativity.
The most complicated thing you’ll find in this book is the “Geometric Orbit Equation”, or
v^2 x R = K,
where v is the velocity, R is the distance separating two bodies and K is a universal constant. I find it very hard to believe that the fundamental workings of the universe can be understood from such a simple equation.
There is basically only one correct, and in the slightest degree, important statement in this book: It is, that we – including the author – do not know everything, or understand everything yet. But we physicists definitely know enough to say that this book is not even wrong.
Finally, let me mention something quite suspisious about the other reviews of this book. As of today (the 31st of May, 2006), there is a total of 95 reviews. 71 of these are 5-star reviews. This is – of course – quite stunning. Out of the 71 reviews, 63, or 90%, have written only one review in total; furthermore, one person wants to give a 1-star review, but is being counted as a 5-star review, twice; another person is counted with a 1-star and a 5-star review, and yet another 5-star review is counted twice. One top-10 reviewer grants the book another 5 stars, but as far as I can tell, all of this persons reviews (which there are more than 2500 of) are 5-star reviews.
If you really want to learn about modern physics, I recommend books by Weinberg, Randall, Greene or Hawking.
In conclusion, I cannot give this book anything more than one star. And sadly enough, nothing less.
Filed under: physics, pseudoscience
« Amazon.com: more science than junk-science (finally)? Not Even Wrestling?” – Kasper Olsen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Zer0, are you familiar with the term “vanity publishing?” Typically, scientists that publish straight to the public and bypass peer review first are viewed with suspicion. Again, I hate to repeat myself, but the criteria for me is acceptance through peer review first before vanity publishing. I am not a physicist. I want to hear the credible physicists first before the newcomer. Likewise for any field. When any so-called “scientist” goes straight to vanity publishing, something is wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 10:06 am
For the record, I’ve been using a Dr. Wayne Dyer meditation CD for a couple of years and it has completely turned my life upside down. There were days I desperately needed money to pay bills where I visualized myself receiving the money and literally found $400 on the street later that day. I’ve had many other experiences visuallizing things happening that later happened I don’t know how anybody could explain…. Anyway, that is my two cents!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Zer0, if you truly have the qualifications in engineering that you mentioned (which I’m sure physics was in your curriculum, and makes you more qualified than me on the topic) and are in a position to determine if the theory has promise, then demonstrate some depth in physics. Show me in the language of physics and math what the Final Theory is saying and why it maybe so. (It doesn’t have to be a dissertation, a few short paragraphs will do.)
I challenge you because it matters to me if you know what you’re talking about or not. I am not someone to believe anything anyone says just because they’re saying it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
JQP,
Thanks for posting the negative review about the book. I have not read the book. The large quantity of positive reviews got me a little suspicious also, so I wanted to get opinions that were negative to balance the equation. I spent very little time at science forums yesterday and didn’t find anything on the book. Can you send the link to where I can read more balanced reviews on the book or the author?
But I’m curious enough to read the book and make a judgment myself. I’ll probably order it soon. Once I read it and find that the theory has promise I will post my review in a scientific language.
I take it that you are not planing on reading the book, and will rely on other reviewers’ comments for arguing the promise of the theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
JQP,
“I challenge you because it matters to me if you know what you’re talking about or not. I am not someone to believe anything anyone says just because they’re saying it.”
You make this statement but at the same time you believe the negative reviewers more than the positive reviewers. You are ready to dismiss the theory before even reading the book. I think you won’t even give it a chance. You have already made up your mind. The door is already closed. I would have to force it open before you even consider reading the book.
Your reflex reaction of closing your mind to anything radical and new is probably based on some sort of a fear. You probably feel safer with ideas and concepts that others have approved for you. You like authority and fear to stand on your own. Have you ever dared to walk alone in the “dark”? Or are you always asking “mommy” or “daddy” to hold your hand?
Reading reviews and peer reviews is fine as long as you don’t forget that those are just opinions and not any more valid than your own opinions. Today’s experts may become tomorrow’s idiots. It has happened in the past and will happen in the future. You have to be brave and wise enough to stand on your own when the tide changes direction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
The search I used is “the final theory Mark McCutcheon physics review”. The physics forum link is: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-119385.html
I also saw “crackpot” used in a number of reviews. Don’t know who wrote them, don’t care. When a real physics breakthrough occurs it will be in the academic journals first, not the bookstore. If it is in the bookstore, there’s a high probability it is another coldfusion fraud.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Zer0, it’s great that you believe you have acquired enough knowledge to be the final arbiter on highly complex topics. I do not have such delusions about myself. I know my limitations and I know when others are more better suited than me to offer an opinion.
Even you don’t believe what your wrote because I am pretty sure you would not send your daughter to a doctor who lacks credentials.
Actually, it is the child who thinks they know all and that the universe organizes around them personally. Experience teaches to look to others and that the universe is indifferent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
“don’t forget that those are just opinions and not any more valid than your own opinions”
So you think all opinions are equal in value?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
You make this statement but at the same time you believe the negative reviewers more than the positive reviewers.
Correct. It is said that science makes skeptism a virtue. When someone claims something that seems preposterous, it probably is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Zer0, get over your anti-establishment views. At least the hippies could blame acid, I’m not sure what motivates you to adopt the weird. But can we get back on topic? I’m still waiting to hear some more of that clever rapartee from that ever articulate Dyer group. It seems they cannot defend their position because there is no truth to it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Zer0, and Dyerites, why does it have to be fear that I reject your ideas? Why can’t it be that I just think they’re just based in ridiculous premises and I don’t think you have enough critical evaluation skills? Isn’t that a much simpler explanation than some pyscho-analysis nonsense? Actually, perpetual energy, spirituality, and the fountain of youth are extremely old ideas, not new. So, this “fear of the new” accusation doesn’t hold. There are a lot of new ideas I am very found of. Nano-technology, for one. But it’s not come up and not appropriate here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
When you have a gun to head and life is just grey and without love and then somebody out of the blue offers you a ray of sunshine, hope and a little faith. Tell me that you would turn away or take notice. I took notice and choice to live thanks to Wayne Dyer. But always God first.
thank you.
Chris
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
When you have a gun to head and life is just grey and without love and then somebody out of the blue offers you a ray of sunshine, hope and a little faith. Tell me that you would turn away or take notice. I took notice and chose to live thanks to Wayne Dyer. But always God first.
thank you.
Chris
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 7th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
“When you have a gun to head and life is just grey and without love and then somebody out of the blue offers you a ray of sunshine, hope and a little faith. Tell me that you would turn away or take notice.”
I would not turn away. But I don’t have a gun to my head (although, too much Dyer on TV could change that) and my life is certainly not without love. Since he has 3 failed marriages, and I’ve been married once for 30 years I would even argue that I have more love in my life than he ever pretends to have.
Did you have a gun to your head?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 9th, 2007 at 11:08 am
“There is another false notion commonly held by the layman, that major scientific discoveries are often the products of amateur minds, and therefore that the authority of the scientist is sometimes to be critically suspected. The philosophical assumption of this is that the discovery of some new fact or idea is usually a matter of accident, and therefore that discovery in science is essentially no different than, say, the finding of a buried treasure, and anyone might stumble onto a chest of doubloons without having any education. While there was a time when big discoveries were made by gifted individuals — think of Alexander Fleming and penicillin, Marconi and radio — most developments are now brought about by organized teams or committees; think of the transistor and of Lunar exploration.
Of course, as we have often seen, a few trained scientists are simply charlatans, and a larger percentage are honestly self-deluded. For any scientist to assume that because he is highly educated he cannot therefore be deluded nor deceived, is a grave error. The layman has much greater difficulty differentiating between the real scientists and the scientists who are simply — innocently — wrong and have chosen to take up residence in that fabled — and increasingly crowded — Ivory Tower. While a scientist in a free society has the same right as any other citizen to speak out on any topic he wishes, many reputable scientists choose to speak or write publicly on subjects outside their established fields of accomplishment or expertise. When a scientist purports to speak authoritatively outside his field of knowledge, he may then be exploiting his reputation — accomplishments and attributes — and playing on that reputation to extend his authority in a possibly unrelated field. An academic who has achieved credibility in the field of statistics cannot legitimately claim that he therefore speaks authoritatively on politics, nor that he is able to detect trickery. In today’s society, we are very accustomed to see celebrities — all too often people in science — endorsing various products and services that have no relationship whatsoever to their professional lives, and motion picture stars sell soap and mortgage plans freely without arousing very much wonder from the public about why they are found on our TV screens and in our magazines performing this task. We are easily blinded by glamour and reputation, which often do not lend any validation whatsoever to such endorsements. This applies both to movie stars and to Ph.D.s.”
From http://www.randi.org/jr/031904science.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 11th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
LOL JQP you are too much -
“Since he has 3 failed marriages, and I’ve been married once for 30 years I would even argue that I have more love in my life than he ever pretends to have.” comment by JQP
If you want to argue that you have more love in your life than Wayne Dyer does by looking at your marriage statuses, that is just plain silly. I actually laughed out loud when i read you used that to guage who carries more love. For someone to make a comment as weak as that, it only shows how rediculous your side of the debate can be.
My physical body is only 26 years old, which is not even half of your age and based on reading your debatings, i think that i am way above you when it comes to debating. And i dont even know that much about it.
Zero –
LOL i liked it when you brought up the point that JQP gave a negative review on a book that he hasnt read yet and was based on what the other negative reviews said. And at the same time JQP says “I am not someone to believe anything anyone says just because they’re saying it.”
Now if that isnt a contradiction you will have to tell me what is.
You know i have never gave an opinion review on a book that i have never read. And that is because i do not know what is in it. Even if i had an idea of what was in it the book, i would not have the position to make an educated review.
That just makes me wonder whether any of the other negative reviews written were just based upon what others reviews gave and not from reading the book. I think we call that prejudging, right?
James -
Its great to hear that the Wayne Dyer meditation cd has changed your life for the better but are you referring to the ahh and omm meditations? And also how does it make you feel everyday? Could you go into a little more detail? Thank you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 13th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
“If you want to argue that you have more love in your life than Wayne Dyer does by looking at your marriage statuses, that is just plain silly.”
You’re right. That was a silly point. However, Dyer devotes a good part of his writing on how to obtain successful relationships. His own failures indicates one of two things: he doesn’t practice what he preaches, or what he preaches doesn’t work. I lean towards the latter.
Zer0′s book. I did not offer any critique, really. But I did dismiss it out-of-hand. My point was that when someone is believes they have a breakthrough in science, publishing a book to change the minds of the general public rather than the science community itself then something is fishy. If an author avoids the very community he is trying to influence, then he/she most likely has something to hide. I have little tolerance for those with such bold claims anyway. Additionally, I have no idea why Zer0 sought my opinion on a physics topic when I told him I was not qualified. If he wants good feedback on the book he should seek someone who has some depth. He did say, after all, he didn’t like relying on other people’s opinions. Why mine was important to him, I have no idea.
Finally, Metalheadjoe, you’re more entertaining when you’re hurling profanities. One of the little pleasures in life is watching those who profess to practice or believe in zen enlightenment blow a gasket over relatively innocuous statements. For someone extolling the benefits of manifestation, you seem to be as petty as the rest of us. Do you really practice enlightenment? And why does most of your commentary focus on my remarks? Are my opinions really the important to you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 17th, 2007 at 1:21 am
While I was typing this, I moved a cloud with m y m i n d .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 17th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
From “Your Sacred Self”: http://books.google.com/books?id=__igh164lOcC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=dyer+moving+clouds+with+mind&source=web&ots=0DKm6OIW2e&sig=-CeNupmORjSBt4jr5ZCyBLWcAco
“Many of the children in the neighborhood may be thinking, ‘Those Dyer kids are crazy, actually believing they can make clouds into designs.’ But why shouldn’t children learn that they have the same divine intelligence flowing through them that moves the clouds? If it is in everything, which we know is true, then it is in both my children and the clouds.”
So, Dyer does not say “I think” or is merely expressing a belief in god and a resulting telekinesis. He says “we know” this to be true.
How can anyone take this seriously?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 17th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Is anyone familiar with the Boxer Rebellion? Boxers were Asian mystics who, like Dyer, believed their minds could manifest things into reality like he describes. They, too, preached the difference between “a knowing” and “a belief.” They had “a knowing” that western bullets could not harm them so they charged British soldiers in a battle during the late 19th century.
Care to venture how well their “knowing” worked? They were annihilated. It didn’t work for them, why would it work for you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 21st, 2007 at 8:45 pm
I came to this discussion via Google because I was interested to see what the vibe was on WD having seen his infommercial on PBS. This guy is so full of it it makes me sick. What bothers me most is his lack of clarity in the making of his claims. He has no valid proof to back up anything that he says. To say that one must be open minded and accept what he is offering is a complete cop out. Just a lazy way of skirting the issue. WD is a fraud deluding weak minded individuals into believing he has something of substance to offer to enhance their life.
I read through almost all of the discussion on this website as I found a great deal of interesting discourse. This whole thread here is one helluva sociology experiment. Me being human, and thus inherently part of the “sociology experiment” has compelled me to comment. Whether or not I agree or disagree with you I want to make it clear that I respect everyone’s input on whatever the subject, and there is a chance I could possibly be wrong in what I am about to say about all you genuises. I am not a genius and there was one time in my life that I was actually wrong.
To metallicajoe: you make statements that you don’t back up and so quick to attack.
Zero: You make some good points but then often get lost in irrational meandering dialogue.
JQP: Whether or not I or anyone else agrees with you at least you back your shit up which is alot more than I can say for the rest of the people here.
Jodee: I agree with you on your assessment of WD’s story about the children by the pool. WD is a completely warped moron in his presentations and conclusions regarding these incidents he reports about the children. Like JQP you can be hard hitting, but also very good about backing your shit up (BTW when I say “your shit” I don’t mean that it’s no good, Jodee and JQP).
Havgr8day: With all due respect you could be the greatest human being (kind, altruistic blah blah blah) on the planet and perhaps a phenominal writer as well, but there is a tone of sappiness and sentimentality that runs through your posts. Again maybe you are a great writer. Not having read any of your work I can’t make a final judgement on that and after all who am I to judge? I, gr8day, am also a writer, of fiction as well, and have been since I was a tyke. I also am a well read student of those works which can be called literary (although I read all kinds of stuff) as opposed to transient garbage, and it is a generally accepted notion by the best writers and critics of our time and the past that the death knell of any work of fiction is sentimentality. Let the work speak for itself. If the narrative “speaks” to us in a sentimental fashion than so be it as long as that sentimentality is not a result of forced narrative interference. It is one thing for a character to have the quality of sentimentality (unendearing BTW), but the writer must leave his narrative free of such discourse. I’m sorry but your posts reek of sentimenatlity, and I will go out on a limb, and say that this sentimentality probably insidiously pervades/invades your fiction writing. But I could be wrong, I was once before in 1969. I was four then I think. I love you too Havgr8day but your nicey nice shit makes me want to disgorge my lunch from my gut. Please be mean and nasty once and show me that you are human. Ironically there is more evil in your phony niceness than that which you might identify as evil (on a surface perspective) in everday life. Not that you aren’t a good person, but please and really I do love you and the world. But I’ll tell you this sometimes I feel hatred and that is ok. It truly is a “dog eat dog” world filled with pain and fear. And just around that corner where darkness hangs heavy over mankind one can also find hope and love and passion. The duality of nature is just that-dual in its nature. Good, bad, indifferent. Humans are a part of that nature. Don’t be an ostrich with your head you know where. Feeling ill toward your brother or sister is merely a part of your nature whether you like it or not. I believe that as reasoning civilized beings we must strive to rise above our animalistic base characteristic however if you study our greatest works of ancient and modern literature you will find that most of these great writers agree that, at heart, we are animals. Read (and perhaps you may very well already have) Homer and Ovid and Bellow and Roth and Dante and Kafka Freud and Nietzsche and Dostoevsky and Gogol and Lowry and Nabokov and Beckett and Balzac and Proust and Conrad and Amis and Flaubert and Joyce and Shakespeare and McCarthy and King and yes even Patterson (although not in the same league but my point is etc. etc. etc. etc.) It’s in all of their writing.
Anyway enough of my being a blowhard, my point is that WD is a phony blowhard trying to sell the public a sack of crap. Many of you who feel like WD has something of substance to offer are somewhat antagonistic towards people like JQP who call WD out on his BS and while I don’t agree with all that JQP says at least, unlike WD, he comes from a stance where he he tries his best to back up his arguments with reason.
If you can’t support your argument then there is no foundation from where we can even begin to debate on any issue. To just spout statements without being able to back them up is of no value to the individual or society. That’s why religion often fails because it cannot be validated (i.e. the existence of any religion’s creator). Same goes for the existence of UFO’s and Bigfoot and ghosts and psychic ability and frauds like Dyer and while I’m at it that criminal who claims to talk with dead people John Edward (of the TV show Cross Country).
I guess what I’m trying to say is anything worth anything, whether it be of value to the world as a medicine, for instance, which is derived by the hard work of scientists and doctors using the power of their knowledge and research, and cold hard science, and the scientific method, to arrive at that useful end product (the medicine)or whether it be of value to the world as art that enlightens and/or entertains, which is derived from both imagination and formal structure (writing something in a piece of fiction akin to “the birds flew into the wondrous sunset” as a claim that it is some sort of revelation within the artwork requires no imagination) the fact is, both science and art require a deft control of the faculties of the imagination. Blind faith works no better in religion than it does in art or science. Imagination is at work in all cases, yes, but it is imagination honed into form, and structure, albeit having its source from dreams or free writing or whatever, that still needs to be shaped by the artist for it to be art that rises above the level of transience.
Please feel free to rip into me now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 21st, 2007 at 10:53 pm
These topics do not require this sort of analytical discussion.
Spiritual Energy is having your INNER SELF free from all limitation.
It is very apparent to me when i am creating from this energy and when i am not.
It is like day and night for myself.
I write music.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 21st, 2007 at 11:00 pm
If you people held unshakable experiential understanding, rather then tripping over yourself and your void intellectual interpretations, then you would come to realize how insane you sound.
Truth is in Dyers works, not always….granted. But he operates from this domain.
Seek experiential knowledge, and you will sift Truth and Non Truth naturally.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Thomas,
The only thing you said that made any sense was that “truth is in Dyer’s works-not always”. How about never. The only one tripping over oneself is you. Experiential knowledge? Please. We all gain experiential knowledge by living. You have basically said absolutely nothing. I write fiction Tom. You write music. We both create. You are great at stating the obvious. If you would like to call that spiritual energy so be it. Nothing the rest of the world isn’t capable of if they put their mind to it. For you these topics don’t require analytical discussion because you have nothing of substance to say. When you begin from a premise that is as vague and as non-committal as yours (i.e. spiritual energy-this can have multiple meanings and is completely subjective) then of course, just like Dyer’s vapid statements that have no basis in logic, one cannot apply something like intelligent analysis. You are preaching blind faith in a holier than thou tone which requires no sound foundation in order to back it up. It actually requires thought to show the fallacy in Dyer’s messages whereas your mindless claim that one need only hold “unshakeable experiential understanding” is just another way of saying “just believe what Dyer or any other flake says without questioning the veracity of his claims”. Using your narrow viewpoint we could just as easily say that water flows uphill and expect people to believe it based upon the notion that we have “unshakeable experiential understanding”. In other words as long as I am convinced of something in my own mind based upon my own experience (even if I am full of shit) then it is true. And I can’t be questioned because my experince and understanding is unshakeable. News flash Tom: Your logic here or better yet the lack of it has resulted in no foward progress in moden civilization whereas questioning baseless claims like those made by Dyer has resulted in learning new truths about reality. Something you seem to be out of touch with. Anybody with a pulse can make a pointless, meaningless statement like yours. You’ve got to do better than that or have the shock treatments at the ward gotten the better of you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 am
Thomas, a large part of your worldview is shaped by the advances of science whether you realize it or not. That is why you most likely would not buy into some of the obviously silly beliefs claimed by tribesmen in remote parts of the earth. There are some things you know better than to believe because the progress science and analytical thinking has shaped how you–and most of us–see the world.
Therefore, you are filling in the gaps where science has not yet advanced. You believe that there is “energy” beyond the physical world. How is that any different from when European tribesmen believed that spiritual beings directly pushed clouds around by hand? Certainly, you would not believe this now–because science closed that gap. What is to say science will not close the “spiritual energy” gap as well?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:57 am
Just to clarify my last point: when things are not understood, humans speculate and make it up so they at least have answers. Once things are understood, they naturally stop making it up and move on to speculating on other unanswered questions.
How is “spiritual energy” not straight out making something up?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:09 am
“…experiential knowledge…”
Hasn’t this led historically to all kinds of ridiculous notions? If you attempt to explain the world as you experience it, almost none of it is accurate: the world appears flat and unmoving, the sun appears to revolve around us, material appears to be 100% solid (and turns out to be mostly empty space), star light appears to be immediate (as opposed to realizing you’re looking at something the way it was 40 years ago!), and so on.
We really cannot progress our understanding through “experiential knowledge.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:17 am
I wished Hana was still around. I wondered if she saw Uri Geller on the TV show Phenomenon. (Uri was traveling with Deepak Chopra show his spoon bending trick as Chopra was using this as proof of mind over matter.)
Well, on Phenomenon another magician did exactly the same spoon bending trick. And Criss Angel offered Uri one million dollars if he could give any detail regarding a note he wrote and put in an envelope. A very simple and straightforward challenge. Uri did not take him up on it. That is because Uri knew he could not do it, and in everyone of these cases where so-called psychics are given a golden opportunity to show the world it’s real, then decline. If Uri really had the psychic powers he claimed he would have proven Criss wrong right then and there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 23rd, 2007 at 6:31 am
Hi JPQ. Happy belated Birthday. (We`re both Libras but I`m not too sure about it – bordering on Scorpio). About Uri Geller – Can`t watch the Phenomenon Show — I live in Israel. Uri used to, as well, but no longer (London?). And I`m not very intereste in the Magician-or-Mind over matter debate vis-a-vis spoon bending (of course, as you`ve probably guessed, I do believe in mind over matter – but this is dangerous waters). Still, I can`t resist another comment, who knows where this blog is going: Debating is somewhat futile, or fruitless (sorry!) to my mind, because: It is like speaking different languages. People who are predominantly Thinking, or Logical types (You, Jody, and maybe John Henry; don`t know about Zero and others) relate and understand the world very differently, than, say, Intuitive and Feeling types (Gr8Day). The latter don`t pay so much attention to details and down to earth proof. It`s like, they see the forest and not so much the trees (Hebrew saying). Not only that: they (we) are living in another reality, or experience the world differently, than, say, you, and for them (us) it really isn` the same world. That is why arguing is not so much to the point. And WD does something good to people with a like mind.
Anyway, that`s why I no longer participate in the discussion. But I really liked, what John Henry called “the sociological (experiment) experience – meeting the different personas and imagining you as humans, etc.
Gr8! greetings for the new link. I adore the central theme – the butterfly taking off – and I even tried to add something, but couldn`t get past the “red tape” of signing in etc..
Happy Thanksgiving to you all, if it`s not over by now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
I have always hated this fraud, and PBS even worse for airing this egomanical moron. He goes on and on about himself, and why good things have happened to him, (uhh random genetics asshole and a good face, otheriwse your an idiot. he goes on and on about how basically he deserves his good fortune, because he “works hard at being spiritual blah blah , then he has his idiot daughter sing on stage, whom he actually gloats over, and what good seed he has. He’s a piece of trash.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Once upon a time we didnt understand or know about electricity or radio waves, but both still existed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 23rd, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Hey, Hana. I understand why you don’t participate. But you did come to mind when I saw the spoon bending. I have a friend who’s a professional magician (does a weekly act at the Improv) and showed me how to do spook bending. In fact, I got so good at it now I can make it look like it melts across my fingers. (In my family we had a believer in spoon bending, and I showed it to her yesterday and she fell for it.) I can teach anyone how to do it. It’s actually pretty easy. In any case, I always thought that Uri was doing a trick and was lying about his abilities. Now I know how he does it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 24th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I watched Dr. Dyer today on PBS (11/24/07) and I’ve seen him on several PBS shows since he’s started walking around on bare feet.
In the beginning , perhaps 15 years ago, I thought to myself….hey this guy sounds like he’s got it together and is really on something.
I believe in the power of thought and while I agree with alot of things Dr. Dyer says, I start losing respect for someone that has made mega millions and now can walk around without shoes on TV and preach about how great life can be. Just give it it away he says. Just get your fill and give the rest away he says.
Well Dr. Dyer, I personally think you have gotten your fill maybe 10 fold and now I’m waiting for you to give some surplus to me.
His book on PBS was a mere 125.00. Can you imagine that?
I can’t help but wonder what his next vision is going to be.
If you think about it, Joel Osteen and many other have the same capturing karisma but just in a different way.
Unfortunately we are a society that’s not happy with itself and are constantly striving for someone else to give us the answers to make it a little easier.
When one of these guys comes along with some snake oil, we go for it. It’s the same thing, just a different time and era.
Just my personal thought!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 24th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
John Henry,
(from your post on 11/21)
You state that Wayne Dyer is a fraud.
How can you prove this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25th, 2007 at 1:36 am
COMMERCIAL INTERRUPTION:
An assignment, should you choose to accept it:
go see MR. MAGORIUM’S WONDER EMPORIUM.
There’s a little something for everyone:
A shooting star, EINSTEIN (what the heck is he doing in there, hmmm?), a pianist and music writer, a straight to the point completely non- (oh, what was that word – do i need to scroll up? oh yes…) non-sentimental quote from Shakespeare, and for me, the word WONDER and a fantastic quote from Dustin Hoffman to Natalie Portman about living her life (your’s, mine, our’s). (Hmm, what would make THOSE TWO STELLAR ARTISTS want to lend their ENERGY to this film?)
And for the concrete (or should we say, stuck in the concrete??
) – make sure to eat a lot of popcorn so that you tie up a bit of the left hemisphere of your brain so you can let go and flow… a little bit.
And if ya’ can’t feel any wonder at the concrete (is it really?) magic in the movie… consider feeling wonder-FULL while regarding every creative and scientific (the two sometimes hold hands, huh?) discovery that it actually took to create, animate, etc. this movie, and others like it.
And where did all of those discoveries originate?
Oooops. Seems we’re back at the beginning.
(BTW, surprised that all of you wanting to offer writing advice haven’t offered this:
Writing 101:
JUST never write JUST.
Well, this movie gives us one more reason to not want to use the word JUST.
STILL, my favorite quote:
“Just beyond the fall from grace,
is an ever shining place…”
And to anyone who has READ any of my posts, y’all know i’m still treadin’ my way toward that shining place, just like everyone else (behind quite a few of you all).
I’ll save my Einstein and Galileo quotes for my next commmercial break (you didn’t think I’d JUST abandon DB completely, did you? I mean, the meetin’ and greetin’ may get less frequent, but I’m still a weeee bit invested in putting springs beneath the feet of any and all nice, bright to brilliant, science folk….)
Night, night.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Wow, once again, I posted at the same time as Kate – JQP’s was the last post when I wrote mine.
NOT DYER’S DEFENDER (woah, that would be way too much work for someone as un-knowledgable about his work as ME) however – did see that he had sold his personal library/books on ebay (or someone else did… think for about a dollar a book, maybe hoping they’d land in the right hands?)
Anyway, I do wish that people would ask themselves where the price tag goes during those fundraisers. If it all goes into his pocket, then what funds are being raised?
Oh no, I’m in jeopardy of getting stuck and sticky in here again.
Thus, popping out!!
Night, night…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25th, 2007 at 2:05 am
should i admit i’m confused? maybe i didn’t refresh the page…
the last post i read before i posted mine was JQP’s post “saying” he wished Hana was around to see Uri…
NONE of the others… until finally NOW.
HI HANA!! Didn’t know about the red tape. So glad you connected (we connected). More connecting to come…
(And when I did read JQP’s post about Uri, I thought, why would Hana want to waste her bright mind on some mind-numbing television? Sort of… sorry guys, comparing hotel porno to making love with the love of one’s life. ???? What does that mean? You can connect the dots. Two completely different things…)
It was like a little reunion tonight.
Maybe something was in the air.
Until our next!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25th, 2007 at 3:12 am
“Maybe something was in the air…”
.
or maybe I JUST need to refresh the page more frequently
Commercial break is officially over….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25th, 2007 at 5:21 am
PS (I know, really, I get it…)
Regarding Thomas M’s posts – I’m guessing he didn’t write any more because he had MUCH better things to do.
Do you know much about how some of the greatest musical artists describe their creative process? Ever been around one of them while they are creating?
I can tell you, that at least for a few of the most globally known and respected musical artists of today (with careers spanning over the last several decades) – the way they describe their creative process is a much closer match to the way Thomas M. described his, than to anything else written by anybody else right before or after that.
And to one recent poster, who I shall not name
, I will also add:
“Perhaps thou proJECTS too much…”
Commercial break is not only officially over, but I think all DB programming is unofficially off for the night…
zzzzzzzzzzz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
HavAGr8Day, you pigeon hole a bit. I was playing piano at four years of age and recitals by the time I was six. I had no training until I was six. My son is an outstanding drummer and a professional today and has played his whole life.
I can tell you from the perspective of being kind of a “border” prodigy, if you will, there was no magic to it and certianly nothing supernatural. My son says the same. I can remember to this day the first time I played piano at about 3 1/2 years old what I saw (mentally in terms of scales and phrasing) and what I felt. I still compose for the piano today.
In fact, that is my point about the law of attraction. From as early as I can remember it was always assumed I was be a professional musician. Everything I did and the way everyone viewed me was as a musician. But I never made any real money at it. No one was going to pay me to hear be-bop jazz compositions during the reign of the Beatles. So, I went into the most foreign possible subject to me: computer science and I mad e a huge living at it. Science was never my thing as a child at all. Music was.
So, what I focused on and was to the depths of my heart never brought abundance: music. The subject I was not really good at brought the most: science. And I can tell you, first person, that musical creativity is not divine. Not everyone (in fact, I’ve never met a musician–and I’ve played with a lot–who ever said their gift was divine. The talented don’t talk that way unless they’re already religious. It is how I see design patterns in the phrasing of musical pieces that makes the difference. I was able to detect them at an early age, as did my son. (More of a case for genetics than divinity.) So, you’re over-generalizing on “the creative.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Oh, I forgot to mention that my great aunt was a child prodigy on piano in the nineteen twenties. So, you have her, then me, and then my son all part of a common gene pool who all had a strong proclivity towards music. We all played at advanced levels without training.
I strongly believe it is a physical charateristic. In fact, to prove it I bet a really good whack in the head, a stroke, or some surgical neural re-wiring could render it completely useless. Cause and effect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
And, a final point on the topic of creativity and and its source. A lot of new age types I have come across in the past who have claimed to be creative on the piano or in painting, turned out to actually suck. On the the other hand, some of the most talented people I’ve ever worked with in music talk in left-minded language–I’ve never seen anyone in a music sessions discuss divine sources in order to create music. We talk about the use of tenths on the bass, or how a dominate seventh doesn’t work, or modulating at certain points. I’ve never seen someone meditate in a musical session and then suddenly arrive at some genius new phrasing.
I don’t want to over-generalize that point as sometimes ides will seem to come from nowhere. But they are not always the best, and they do not always happen that way. This can easily be physically: when the brain is relaxed and focused on the task at hand, it works better. So, it has nothing to do with tapping in on a higher source.
I’m curious to know if John Henry, too, uses left-minded approaches to his fictional writing. My father was a fiction writer, my uncle was a very famous writer, James Thurber (there’s picture’s of my Aunt Nettie with him in his biography), and the science fiction writer Greg Bear was a student of my father. I was raised in the literary world. My father spoke of literary style in left-minded language. Use of language to create content, rather than the content itself. James Joyce was an example he used a lot.
John Henry, do you approach it from the left, too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I was listening to Hay House radio and when Wayne Dyer came on, I could not stand it. A few months ago when my PBS was doing a fund raiser I listened to him to see what he was up to these days. A lot of it sounded very spiritual and very good, but when he got the story of how he took his son’s tee shirt away and tortured him for a long time by not giving it back, I was turned off to him. He thinks he taught his son not to be obsessed with things, but I think he taught his son never to trust him again. He asked the son to show him his favorite shirt, which the son did and then the father not only betrayed him but reminded him of it constantly. I am not a very posession oriented person, but I thought that was a terrible show of power and outright meanness. I think if he ever asks his son again, the son will lie to him just to stop him from pulling this kind of trick on him again.
It still bothers me…don’t know why but I thought about it all over again when I heard him talking today.
The guy is a jerk.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Lin, I agree. There are other examples where he behaves similarly. These are the anecdotes that indicate that he is not really a con man, in the way Deepak Chopra is, out for profit but an intellectual goof who seems to not see the recklessness of his actions or suggestions. I think he is just an out-and-out dumb person who has found a paying audience.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
WOW! I bet you weren’t expecting this many responses. I only read the first 15 or 20. I liked Tim’s comments. It was difficult for me to believe in Christianity because i would base my belief on other christians. Big mistake. Many times they are trying to rule with fear and guilt.
If you actually read the bible- start with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first 4 books of the new testament. All 4 are about Jesus’s time here on earth. I love to talk about the bible and also hear opposing views. I do believe that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the 3rd day. That I believe without a doubt. It would take me a while to explain. I will if your interested. However I do still have 2 questions about the bible that i haven’t been able to find answers to. 1. dinosaurs? and 2. suicide. Anyway great site.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Let me ask you, Andrew. I’m not a Christian, or religious in any way, and so certainly you are more familiar with its teachings. Asking and receiving for forgiveness is at the heart of Christianity, correct? So, in all seriousness, if someone as evil as, say, Hitler asked for forgiveness in the last 5 minutes of his life, should he be rewarded with eternal salvation in heaven? Does Christianity have within its theology a tenet such as that one can commit sins too horrible to ever be forgiven?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2007 at 12:19 am
I found myself readin many more posts. My wife is cleaning and the kids are sleeping so it worked out great. These posts are very amusing and enlightening. I was very amused when metallicajoe would exchange with jqp. Anyway, a little background for you all. I grew up Lutheran, but didn’t understand why. My mother is and was very manic depressive. Father was and still is an angry, bitter, alcoholic. I still love them both.
I blamed my horrible formative years on my parents and god. I’ve been to the gates of hell many times. Something always pulled me back. I’m 33 now and lovin life. Marriage can be a challenge sometimes. We have been together 14 years, married for ten. My wife is awesome. I could fill the page with her and our 3 kids. I’m suspicious of many churches and people who profess to be religious. Like I said before I believe steadfastly in Jesus Christ. I will expand on this later. I hope to add to the conversation here. later
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2007 at 12:25 am
good question John. The best way to answer this is to think of the United States. We have laws to govern us. We are a free country, but we still have guidelines. If you were to steal or kill you should be punished. But you are still free to make decisions. Hitler’s redemption is between him and God. I dont get a say in the matter. lol
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Why does the word supernatural come up here so often? Have I used it? I know I use “something more…”
I think it’s all NATURAL.
I was musing today: about Einstein, Pythagorus, Da Vinci, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, and so many others. Individuals who had no trouble enjoying the world from many different perspectives – and who seemed to feel no need to limit themselves for fear of appearing foolish.
From my perspective, it was very helpful to them…
I mean, most of us know about the Pythagorus’ theorum; but not as many of us know how much Pythagorus and his colleagues explored the world of symbolism in numbers – essentially NUMEROLOGY… and music and….(and how it all seemed to weave together for them in reaching higher levels of understanding). Anyway, they never seemed to get too stuck on having to be 100% rational so as to retain any sense of credibility. Their curiosity seemed to lead them everywhere, … and eventually into making so many contributions to so many different fields -math, numerology (the beautiful symbolism of numbers), music etc.
From another perspective, look at Da Vinci – most noted for his art of course. But yet, many also are aware of his very “scientific” bent: sneaking into crypts to disect … corpses … so as to understand anatomy which contributed to his paintings and sculpture. And then there was his sketch book… and if I recall, he was one of the first to have a sketch of a flying machine that resembled a helicoptor…
I think when the brain and soul/psyche is freed up, and allowed to utilize all of itself, it has the greatest ability to make the most profound leaps. (With help of course from the little Something More
Elizabeth Kubler Ross – contributed so much to a compassionate, humane understanding of death and dying – having at least one book that is used in universities and some medical schools still today. But if you read some of her later works, she may seem a little OUT THERE (And hey, i have no problem with that).
Whether it is science, art, creativity, spirituality (I really do believe spirituality is a distinct study and body of knowledge in itself) – it does all seem to have the same pattern of learning, assimilating, making mistakes, (making mistakes/learning perhaps redundant…) and growth…
(Why would individuals who spend years studying those principles not having something more to offer than those who do not?)
I “JUST” WONDER what individuals lose when they try to boil all of their thoughts down to the rational.
(Sometimes this site seems to be all about semantics to me… Anyway…)
Did Elizabeth Kubler Ross become a physician, and then become looney? Well, I don’t think so. I think there’s SOMETHING MORE, and even if I haven’t experienced what she did, I feel no need to discount her later experiences.
And in the realm of when individuals are predominantly seeking the spiritual path, I naturally assume that there is going to be a similar learning curve; exploration, discovery, theories, practice… mistakes, real learning – and experiences that go beyond that of the average Joe – that’s how it works in most fields, yes?
There isn’t a topic that has been covered on this site that I’ve considered SUPER-natural.
It all feels profoundly natural. What is, what could be, what is to be…
At the risk of making someone really bored, I’ll repeat one more time that I think all of the experiences that I/others/have had ARE natural – including the psychic ones. I think the something more is natural – even if it fall into a category that JQP defines as “supernatural.”
Just because they’re natural doesn’t mean that they aren’t spiritual. For me, that’s the semantics, parsing words stuff.
Funny, JQP has a family full of creatives, and I have a family full of creatives AND scientists (physics, and “rocket scientists” as well
It’s the one thing I’ve never gotten on this site – the polarization. I don’t experience it within my circle of varied friends and family (regardless of beliefs).
WELL.
The quote in Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium is: loosely: “your life is an occasion; rise to it.”
JQP, why did you abandon your music so easily? Did it not bring you that much joy? how do you know it doesn’t still promise you great fulfillment (along with other things in your life?)
And funny how you mentioned the Beatles… it was one of the individuals from that band – that I had the outstanding good fortune of hearing compose. FELT a lot like Thomas M. described it.
A LOT. A certain musician who one might call Stevie, if he were perhaps a friend, I believe would most certainly describe his creative process as being very similar as well.
Anyway, whatever the creative process – I say, HAVE AT IT! In that area, however a person arrives, whatever the journey – it’s to be celebrated in my book.
Lastly, I think Hana made some interesting dot-connecting points though. (I thought of the Myer-Briggs testing when I was reading the post.) Perhaps some of us do have processes that are much more related and connected to those from the “domain” that Dyer draws from – that make us feel really comfortable and familiar with the reality he describes… (Again, not speaking for all of it…)
And in terms of Dyer, I do have to say one last little thing…
I have a minor in child development (what does that mean? not much, but i do love the little ‘uns!) However, so many references on this site regarding Dyer’s behavior with children have reminded me of Maria Montessori. I actually loved her perspective, and found it really optimistic and practically helpful when working with children in all sorts of settings. I never addressed the topic specifically on this site, cuz… you know, the stage/drama thang.
I just think there’s a lot of fertile ground in all of this. Fertile ground = good potential for GROWTH for all of us. ANd you know me, growth freak
.
Nice touching base.
. would love it.
Nice learning about your musical background JQP.
If you ever play nearby, I’ll pop in to support ya’
I’m a little disappointed in myself, not feeling as catalystic
as I normally have fun feeling here.
Probably cuz I’m inundated with lots of da’ family out visiting and haven’t had many moments to myself.
Trying to balance all the different schedules and demands of close and extended family during a bit of an intense week… is keeping my thinkin’ pretty firmly within the halls of my brain.
Ooooooo, i like it when it gets to wander yonder…
Soon!
PS I really would love y’all to see that movie.
It’s a bit like excavating jewels, and reminded me of a lot that we bounce around on this site.
Alrighty.
Until the meetin’ and greetin’ has a chance to happen again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2007 at 3:12 am
OH, and just like science and creativity can enjoy holding hands,
why wouldn’t creative inspiration and craft like to cozy up too?
I mean, it’s all part of the wonderful lump of life’s clay…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2007 at 8:54 am
“Why does the word supernatural come up here so often? Have I used it?”
Do you believe in things that are not physical? Then by definition, that is the meaning of supernatural. Not its connotation, but its definition.
A typical strategy when arguing with new agers. They like to give new meanings to words, which shifts the argument.
If you do not believe in “supernatural,” then you believe all things are physical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2007 at 9:51 am
HavAGr8Day:
“Why did you abandon your music so easily?”
Easy. It was either that or starve. I found more “abundance” in one year in computer science than I did in 20 as a musician.
“I “JUST” WONDER what individuals lose when they try to boil all of their thoughts down to the rational.”
So much is *gained* by the process! Contrary to now popular maxims that imply an abandonment of wonder when you “count the stars,” more wonderment has come from rational thinking than religion or the spiritual could ever offer. Case in point: quantum mechanics. Talk about spectacular. And it came from a strict rationalization process that was refined over time. Nothing is lost in that process, more has been gained than ever. You can be sure we would have never got to the moon on the spiritual imagination, which, as was stated, is not all that imaginative.
Maria MontessoriAnother word for unstructured. If you want your child to thrive and live a productive life, nothing beats structure. I have many in my family. I have seen it practiced both ways. I can tell you structure produced more well-adjusting people than the unstructured lifestyle. Many from the unstructured turned to drugs (as Dyer’s did, interestingly enough), depression, anti-social behavior and so on. Mind you, too much structure is equally as bad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2007 at 10:09 am
“Why did you abandon your music so easily?”
Actually, there’s another reason more pertinent to this forum that I failed to mention: life is not about self-fulfillment and making yourself happy. Music is not important. It is a whim; a pastime; entertainment. Focusing on survival leads to a much better well-adjusted life than the pursuit of pleasure. That is why, as recently reported, that rock musicians have a mortality rate twice that of the population http://living.oneindia.in/insync/rock-stars-pop-stars-early-death-040907.html
I’m glad I gave it up. I do not see music as really helping anyone all that much. Yes, it entertains and can provide moments of pleasure, but in the grand scheme is not a productive element. I feel that way about all artistic endeavors. If it does feed you or someone else, then it is not all that important.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Andrew, in a way you side-stepped the question with I don’t get a say in the matter. While I get that God is your ultimate and final arbiter on all things and not us mere mortals, biblical content does attempt to express the will of God and tells us how to best get him to like us. It does say in many ways how we will be forgiven and rewarded, and does not side-step it with, “don’t know, that’s up to the almighty.”
As a believer in the bible, how do you explain Constantine’s editing of the biblical books for political gain, with the Christian movement at the time, during the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, and, moreover, the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? A politician single-handily determined what would and would not be in the bible for his own purposes. Additionally, no one knew who actually wrote the gospels so it was *guessed* it was Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
Also, you are undoubtedly familiar with the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah. (Forgive me for being graphic, but there is a point.) If you pay attention to this story, it depicts God punishing homosexuals, but rewarding incest–Lot, the nephew of Abraham, later has sex with his daughters in a cave. It also depicts gays as having physical anal sex with angels in Lot’s house.
Do you then believe incest is sanctioned by God? And do you believe it is possible to have anal sex with angels?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
JQP, I thought my answer may have been vague. sorry. More to the point would be sin is sin. We are all afflicted with it. How we handle it is up to the individual. God views sin the same. He hates it, not the individual. Something as simple as looking at another individual outside of marraige lustfully is sin. What hitler did was horrible and wicked. God sees it the same. He doesnt hate one more than the other.
Regarding Constantine’s editing of the biblical books for political gain. We haven’t seen pandering like this before. Have we? Of course we have. Politicians pander to what ever group will give them success. I’m trying to find where Constantine edited the biblical books for political gain. I know that he tolerated Christianity. Also offered reparations to the church. The story of Lot who was the nephew of Abraham. He lived in Sodom with his wife and daughters. He had been there about 8 years I believe, so he was comfortable in the city. God’s angels came to him at the request of abraham. They told him to leave the city because God had become frustrated with their evil ways. When the angels were in Lot’s house ,the people of sodom came to the door to have sex with the angels. In my bible there is no mention of all the citizens being male or the angels being all male. I have also seen a southern Kentucky church picketing outside military funerals. One picket sign read god hates fags and there proof was malachi 1:3 but Esau I have hated, and turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the jackals.
I have yet to find proof of Esau being gay. This goes back to Genesis. Esau and Jacob(renamed Israel) were twin brothers. They were born to Rebekah and Isaac, who was the son of Abraham.
I’m trying to keep it short because with 3 kids and babysitting an infant for a friend, I get interrupted often.
Anyway I don’t believe Lot gets rewarded for incest. In fact I believe it’s more of a punishment. However Jacob(Israel)was married to 2 women and had kids with both plus there housemaids. So I can see where Mormons had gotten the idea of polygamy.
Also, my wife and I have many friends who are gay.
I grew up with the son of a minister who was flamin. He was my best friend. Our church wanted everyone to sign a petition that would introduce a bill in our state to ban gay marriage. We didn’t sign. Are we going to hell now? The U.S conference of Catholic bishops would have you believe that. Political gain? yes. Constantine would be proud. Thats all I have time for
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
For anyone believing in psychic phenomenon. How can anyone believe this nonsense? They’re fakes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo&feature=related
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
And this one’s for Hana:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YJDh1xjSeU&feature=related
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Thank you for the response, Andrew. Note, that the emboldened sentence refers to the two angels who Lot let spend the night. Clearly they are male. Lot protects the angels–by offering his daughters up for gang rape, no less!–because he obviously believes the angels can engage in corporeal sex. (He’s standing there with them.) But then God destroys the city yet saves Lot and his daughters knowing they will have sex. This strongly suggests that God considers homosexuality more of a sin than incest. Much more sinful.
If you buy into this, then you believe being gay is more of a sin than a father who molests his daughter. One leads to severe punishment, the other does not. And on some level I bet you realize the humans can’t have sex with angels. I should not put words in your mouth, but if you think that’s nonsense why not the bible’s other exaggerations?
Where I’m going with this is: What criteria to you use to believe the parts you accept, and reject the parts you don’t want to believe? Of course you may be one who takes the whole bible literally. If so, then how would you explain all its contradictions? Most explain away the contradictions by cherry picking.
Finally, do you think a God who mass murders like this is worthy of worship?
Gen. 19:1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.” “No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.” But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom –both young and old –surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
“Get out of our way,” they replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
======================================================
So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 27th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Otay JQP.
I think for anyone who reads your posts; you’ve revealed a some meaningful information lately. And i’m glad (I don’t think it’s in a bad way for you…).
No value in music or art or literature?
I guess if you don’t value or believe in the human soul, or some essence in each of us, then that would make some sense…
(Sometimes, I think of you as the self-assigned FSA {substituted for FDA}
– wanting to make sure that everyone stays safe and sound. Add to that the fact that you seem to want to stand firmly on ONLY physical ground, (even though you’ve already expressed that what appears to be physical is often not) – it just makes me feel as if deep down you really do want to PROTECT everyone from what you perceive to be the dangers of EVERYTHING.
The desire to protect must come from a good place.
But I’m not sure that I have ever known a person as … rejecting of so MUCH of the human experience. ??
JQP, it’s not necessary to get too personal, but you have mentioned your marriage. I don’t even know how to address the question, because I feel anything you might write would effect your family/wife also…
But do you believe in LOVE? (And if so, how??)
Perhaps out of love, you focused upon earning a living – and surviving, for all of your family. And that is such a noble thing I think.
But is that all that there is for you now – even now that you’re semi-retired? That’s it? Survival?
In your secular human points, you talked about the value of growth and creativity in a society… how does that fit in to things?
Also JQP, you’ve referenced American Idol (have NEVER watched it), and the Chris Angel magic show (have also never watched that)…
I can see considering these types of things to be whim and entertainment (gosh, sorry to Chris ?Angel and to American Idol) – but ALL of humanity’s history of art/music/literature/philosophy … whim?
I can’t imagine living in such a world.
No inner essence. No love (how could there be if we are all only physical selves trying to survive only physically?). No expression and growth of the inner self (what inner self is there?). What journey is there?
It seems so empty. Dark. Pointless. (Not life, but the life that those views create.)
Do you disdain psychology too? Philosophy? Point: in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, survival is level one. All the good stuff comes later…
Anyway, about your comment on rock stars – I don’t think they are NECESSARILY the examples I would use when I think about music that lifts and transforms and heals. (Tangent: there is a significant amount of medical data now on the effects of some forms of music, and sounds, on the healing process.)
JQP, I used to josh you about doing more charity work (actually don’t really like the word charity or work
– I think of it more like: humanity love 
.
But now I think, wow, this man was born with a natural expressive tendency and talent toward music? Something that everyone around him saw and appreciated? Something you mention having done for twenty years?
Well, if you do believe in love, think of all of the loving ways you could use that gift…
even if it is to write a song for each of your grandchildren. To compose something for your wife (in honor of all that you’ve given and sacraficed for each other – and all of the good stuff too).
To compose something that expresses what someone in your life (who may be facing the end of their life) has meant and means to you?
Do you view comforting, soothing, caring, be-friending as whims? (I’m guessing NO by the way.)
Anyway, you always have the choice to connect to your musical self in a new, fresh way in which you feel it contributes something positive to the world. Maybe even positive to the survival of the world…
I’m obsessing about your shoved-aside musical side, I KNOW. I’ll stop… (Although it is challenging…)
About the value in focusing upon survival – I don’t de-value that desire (especially from a parent/spouse perspective/responsibility) – however, it’s just that my years of working in a hospital (NEVER watch those hospital shows either btw, wayyyyy too silly to me – oops, sorry to ALL those shows, what do I know?) – but all of my years working with people who have suffered physical losses/trauma/ends…have taught me one thing: you can do everything you possibly can to create a safe, survival enhancing structure around you – and in the blink of an eye, it can all fall away…
Truth be told, in the blink of an eye, it WILL at one point all fall away. And the young man who is driving a car one day, and paralyzed from the waist down the next day (through no fault of his own), could be any one of us. There is no “us” and “them.” We are all ‘US.’
At the same time, even in the above scenario, and even in “worse” ones, an individual can still find a new lease on life – value, meaning, purpose. I know people whose feel their quality of life actually improved tremendously after what society might judge as a tragedy… yet it was the one thing that opened their eyes to what was most important to them (usually love and loving one’s fellow man – RIGHT NOW – because there is an acute awareness that that is what we have).
Anyway, I find it confusing, and maybe actually too hard to believe that you really believe in only two things: the PHYSICAL, and helping the physical to survive. ????
You can control some things. But you can’t control most things – unless you make you life extremely small. And even then, it will never work.
Anyway, more than ’nuff said.
About the psychic “phenomenon” – I didn’t check out that link. But from a strictly RATIONAL perpective, I believe in it – because I’ve experienced it – and there is so much data on it. There is even some knowledge accruing on what predisposes some toward being more susceptable to having the experiences (something about being closer to the neurotic spectrum of the psychological stucture, as opposed to say the tightly wound, high-screening non-empathetic psychopathic structure – if we’re talking about extremes)…
Anyway, this is all a bit random, even for me I think. But it does bring it all back around to the original reason that I brought up my writing/creativity in the first place: during the periods in my life when creative energy is really flowing and dominant, I have experienced the most concrete psychic experiences.
Sometime, after the dust settles down the line, I’d be happy to even share some of it with DB, or even YOU JQP. People who have known me for decades have witnessed it. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Again, that’s why for me, it’s NATURAL.
I don’t believe I’m just a group of cells.
And all of the things that occur in my life occur naturally. I breathe, sleep, and so forth.
Again, not re-inventing the wheel. So many people are much farther ahead in their understanding and experience of these things than me.
********************
Lastly, about John Henry’s (name?) points about writing structure etc (not trying to derail the blog here…), but, yes, of course… even in high creative writing one is given some tools for their writing chest…
101: Plot, character, character, location, character arc, as well as more subtle things like pacing, suspense, beginning-middle-end… show don’t tell, etc etc etc.
HOWEVER, I think for many people (perhaps like you with your talent for music?) – it is often sort of like – once you learn to crawl, walk, run, swallow solid food, etc., it all falls into the background for the most part – appearing in later stages when too many people involved in a project say “you’re showing so much that I’m wishing you would TELL a little more…” Or …”this isn’t clear for me…” Etc.
But the WONDER I experience with my creative process, is simply how much better my work is when I’m doing what is known more as “automatic writing” – and am extremely UNconscious of what I am writing. Later, after I figure it out – what I’ve written that is, I may become more conscious
But I will say again that when I set pre-plot a story, I (my conscious self) is WAY too involved – and WAY too limited. Most of my work involves getting out of my own way, so that something larger than what I would consciously come up with can flow through me.
Having said all of that, I’d rather not have to go over it again with John Henry or even Henry James
for that matter. Why? Because it makes something I like to be intimate, natural, and not very conscious – almost self or other conscious. Exactly not my point.
Again however, I know my process fairly well by now. But I am sure that everyone else’s process is as individual as they are.
***************************************
In grad school, I did a research project which involved children in homeless shelters, head-start programs and in (Maria) Montessori schools. I found the Montessori schools to be quite structured actually.
Maybe a problem with blog sites in general: too many inadequate sound bites
.
***************************************
I hope, as Hana did, that everyone had a warm, filling and safe Thanksgiving.
You all popped into my mind late Thanksgiving eve – I sent you ALL good wishes. (Maybe you felt them
.
JQP, I hear a piano calling you…
That level of natural talent, and love for something, and you can turn your back on it… forever?
Na…………
Not when it’s beckoning you like it is……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 27th, 2007 at 3:42 am
PS: three things I’ve been called on this blog, but in no other area of my life…
a. ADHD
b. New age
c. sentimental
(sensitive, yes, but never sentimental…)
now, g’nite everybody!!! (I’ve still got da relatives to entertain tomorrow
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 27th, 2007 at 8:43 am
HavAGr8Day:
Let me add one to your list – long-winded!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 27th, 2007 at 11:05 am
HAGD, explain anything you have written here that does not fit this definition. You have expressed a wide range of spiritual inclusion, clearly you show “self spirituality” and not religious dogma, and show a believe in mind-body-spirit living.
New Age is the term commonly used to designate the broad movement of late 20th century and contemporary Western culture, characterized by an eclectic and individual approach to spiritual exploration. Self-spirituality, New spirituality, and Mind-body-spirit are other names sometimes used for the movement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 27th, 2007 at 11:15 am
“In your secular human points, you talked about the value of growth and creativity in a society… how does that fit in to things?”
Growth/progress is measured by one’s improvement in overcoming life’s problems. Driving a car, getting a job, providing adequate income, preparing for retirement are all milestones of growth. Creativity is certainly an aspect of complete living, but not in the childish nonsensical way you describe it.
I know, you think growth is opening yourself to psychic fakes, new age spirituality, becoming more child-like (go figure how that is growth), and believing you are getting more in touch with yourself by putting your dramatic emotions on display. That’s fine. But I personally do not think people who practice that way of living are truly growing. Typically, they just wind up depending on others to get by and never are all that self-sufficient. Not always, but enough to make that statement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 27th, 2007 at 11:29 am
“That level of natural talent, and love for something, and you can turn your back on it… forever?”
Like I said, I still compose. I didn’t turn my back on it, I just never made a living off it.
I have many times in my life come across those who talk “new agey” and claim musical talent. Typically, not always, they are never nearly as talented (nowhere near) as those who express themselves in left-minded language musically. Serious, hardcore musicians just normally don’t act in ways you describe. My point is, at the top of the talent scale in music, you find fewer of the new age type. Not that there is any cause and effect there. There’s not. Anyone can possess talent regardless of their beliefs. But you were making a case earlier that the more creative people tend to be more in touch with the “source.” And I’m saying the ones at the top of the talent pyramid will tell you “nonsense!” They will tell you their talent comes from hard work. Classical training tends to produce superior musicians. (A point heavily driven in Keith Emerson’s biography. Surely, the most talented rock musician ever.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 27th, 2007 at 11:51 am
b. New age
c. sentimental
(sensitive, yes, but never sentimental…)
Not ADHD? Do you think your writing here is focused?
Not sentimental? Are you kidding me? Here’s the definition: “maudlin expressions of sympathy”; “mushy effusiveness”;
Everything you’ve written here is either maudlin or mushy. No question about it. Your friends must not be very honest with you.
I agree with Max’s addition. I’ll add my own:
d. Defensive
e. Occasionally deceiving
f. Naive
g. Given to stereotyping
h. Definitely not a grammarian
i. Easily angered (occasionally)
j. Want to be everyone’s friend
k. Wants to hate me, but can’t bring herself to say it (by the way, hate is okay. Loving everyone unconditionally is not only impossible but unhealthy)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 27th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
“In your secular human points, you talked about the value of growth and creativity in a society… how does that fit in to things?”
An addendum to my earlier comments on this: Growth is about expanding responsibility. The more responsible you become in life, the more you’re in a position to help others. You cannot give money if you don’t make enough to give. To provide for others you must have the means to do so. Plain and simple.
The kind of personal growth that Dyer preaches is self-centered childishness. His growth is measure d by how happy you make yourself (yes, I know he includes others, but his philosophy is by and large centered on making yourself happy and content). I believe just the opposite.
Growth is how responsible you become, and, thus, how much of a dependable pillar you build for others. If you life puts little emphasis on money, acquiring expanded means of support, then what good are you to others? If your life is about *largely* admiring sunsets and smelling every rose you pass then are you really growing beyond your childhood? Would you not agree that providing a home (the building itself) for someone else who needs it is a better measurement of growth than thinking good thoughts?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“I think for many people (perhaps like you with your talent for music?) – it is often sort of like – once you learn to crawl, walk, run, swallow solid food, etc., it all falls into the background for the most part – appearing in later stages when too many people involved in a project say “you’re showing so much that I’m wishing you would TELL a little more…” Or …”this isn’t clear for me…” Etc.”
You’ve obviously never studied how Ernest Hemingway or James Joyce wrote. Literary style and word choice *becomes* the differentiating factor. In fact, device plots and character development become second nature. What distinguishes a great writer from the average is language more than content. Look at Sylvia Plath’s work, for instance. Her subject matter is nothing that millions haven’t experienced (depression, troubled marriage, etc.). But her use of language is extraordinary. It is not that she is painting a vase, it is how she paints it that makes the difference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 12:18 am
This is exactly what I mean:
Hemingway’s prose style was probably the most widely imitated of any in the 20th century. He wished to strip his own use of language of inessentials, ridding it of all traces of verbosity, embellishment, and sentimentality. In striving to be as objective and honest as possible, Hemingway hit upon the device of describing a series of actions by using short, simple sentences from which all comment or emotional rhetoric has been eliminated. These sentences are composed largely of nouns and verbs, have few adjectives and adverbs, and rely on repetition and rhythm for much of their effect. The resulting terse, concentrated prose is concrete and unemotional yet is often resonant and capable of conveying great irony through understatement. Hemingway’s use of dialogue was similarly fresh, simple, and natural-sounding. The influence of this style was felt worldwide wherever novels were written, particularly from the 1930s through the ’50s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 12:41 am
I have listened to all of Waynes audio tapes which is hours and hours and hours of stuff.
So i would think that i have most of the experience as to what wayne says and talks about.
I cant see one even logical reason why someone would hate him or call him a fraud or fake.
And when i read some of the disagreements by jqp or john henry i still see no logical disageements to tell me he is a fraud. I believe that dyer speaks alot of truth and it seems to me that he a genuinly kind person. And what he says makes alot of sense to me.
And jqp, im losing interest with arguing with you cuz the way you run in circles i could never win with a person of your stubborness and closemindedness. Now this is your turn where you say how you are not closeminded and say that dyer is a fake.
But first,
There is no right and wrong (if you look from the big picture)
God is all loving, does not judge nor punish (NO im not talking about the bible god cuz obviously that god is violent)
There is no hell only heaven which we all came from and will all go back when we die.
Now you can go ahead and tell me i have no proof of this stuff.
Goodnight
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Oh and by the way Mr. John Q Public – You should try not to use such big words that most people dont understand the definition to i noticed you do this alot – congrats on your wide range of vocabulary but it doesnt help to get your full meaning across to the average joe so please try to impress others with your vocab outside the forum please. Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 8:22 am
“And when i read some of the disagreements by jqp or john henry i still see no logical disageements to tell me he is a fraud.”
I’ve tried to make clear I don’t think he is a fraud in the since he is trying to con. I think he gives reckless advice and I don’t think he commands the intellect to see that it is reckless. He sells a flawed product.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 8:31 am
“You should try not to use such big words..”
Where I’ve used words that I think others may not know, I have defined them. I don’t recall using any words that a college freshman would not understand.
Besides, did you read the opening commentary to this forum? “No eigenvectors, no eignenvalues, no renormalization group.”
Perhaps I’m not the one in the wrong forum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Metallicajoe, you seem to have trouble constructing an argument, or you just don’t. Let me rephrase that. Your comments either take pot shots at me (which is pointless because I have way more time on my hands than you) or that you simply state that you agree with Dyer. But no supporting information or augmentation to the thread.
Let me help.
1. How do you distinguish between a child making a birthday wish blowing out the candles and manifestation? What evidence do you have that one works over the other? If you say they both work, then every child gets their wish??
2. Do you know about the attempt to mentally levitate the Pentagon in 1968? (There were hundreds involved.) Needless to say, they failed. That is a strong case against mind over matter.
3. Since Dyer and his ilk have been manifesting for a long time now–and I think it is safe to say it is for world peace–what evidence is there to show it did anything? With, presumably, more and more “manifesting” in the nineties, we were attacked in 2001 and then illegally invaded another country. Now international political tensions are higher than ever. The world peace thoughts didn’t seem to work. Also, are you aware of the recent research of prayer to help relatives recover from surgeries? Two groups: one was asked to pray, one was asked not to. The one that asked not to had a better recovery rate. This does not suggest that not praying helps, but that it is random. Could have gone either way. But clearly praying (i.e. manifestation) didn’t work.
4. The individual who found the $400 dollars and kept it. Actually, if he had listened to Dyer’s message he would have returned the money not keep it. That kind of anecdote shows a misunderstanding of what Dyer is aiming at with his manifestation. He says in one book, “Will you win the lottery? No! But you’ll feel like you did.” It is not about acquiring a wade of cash. Keeping the $400 was not the moral action.
Food for thought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 10:41 am
“The individual who found the $400 dollars and kept it.”
This is also a great of example of why I say Dyer is not a fraud, but reckless. He does encourage moral action. I’m all in favor of that. But his approach is such that people like “the individual” mentioned above now believes when he comes across someone else’s cash that it belongs to him because he is now convinced–thanks to Dyer–the universe has answered his vision and is giving it to him. That is wrong-headed thinking.
Proper thinking is this: “Someone lost their money and I should find a way to give it back. In any case, I know it is not my money and I’m not going to keep it.”
That is exactly how Dyer is reckless. He sends confused message on morality because he mixes it with self-centered childishness like the universe will answer your wishes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I agree with Max
.
(And I have always used a casual conversational style on this blog – for better and for worse.)
In terms of all the opinions on creative writing
– I said in the beginning that I hold my creative (professional) writing as sacred, and I’m still not going to go into it too much on this blog. (However, I will “say” that I NEVER have the above sorts of “conversations” with fellow writers/authors. {I use those words together – because authors don’t author, they WRITE… and are authors of published works.} Anyway, the above comments remind me of AP Lit high school courses {and Cliff notes} – not the real, much more organic world of inspiration and craft.)
I said to John Henry, “Perhaps you proJECT too much…”
And I’ll say it to you JQP as well. (And to all of us really.)
JQP, why would I hate you?
(Mostly I wish that you could keep everything GOOD that you already seem to know, and better sift through what you don’t seem to understand – so that you could integrate it differently. I think it’s very possible that this whole experience may lead you in directions that you never predicted.)
Anyway, early on, when I did lose my compusure, it wasn’t out of anger. I think what I learned in those initial experiences – (so easy to see when it’s in type) – is that while I was being sensitive to one set of individuals (and trying to prevent perceived cruetly and unfairness), I was fairly insensitive to the individuals I perceived to be perpetuating it (YOU JQP first and foremost).
(I think that’s my unofficial apology to you
While we disagree about a lot of things, isn’t that NATURAL? And if we discuss things – without belittling or name-calling (the way I was taught back in elementary school) – is it really personal?
Well, I will close with a couple of things –
I don’t think it is very scientific or rational to deny/disclaim that which can’t be measured or understood fully… yet. (Otherwise, why not write ‘The End’ on the big book of scientific knowledge now?)
Just as the western medical field is becoming much more ‘w’holistic (and effective), I’m guessing that the field of science is expanding in multiple directions as well…
So many of the topics discussed (chaotically!) on this board – are inherently challenging for science to study with many of its current methods. But that doesn’t mean that the field won’t eventually DISCOVER ways of evaluating the topics.
(Perhaps someday there will be ‘right brain methodology’
which will offer significant, additional tools… AND the sort of measurability upon which science thrives.) GROWTH. It’s GOOD. 
But if you go back to my second post – to kill what one doesn’t know because ONE(SELF) doesn’t know it or understand it yet – seems silly (expressed as the playful me) – AND irrational (expressed as the logical me).
SO.
Now that my out-of-town gang has departed, I must get back into the swing of all of my life’s responsibilities again. (Thus, no justifyin’ the long-winded posts for quite a while – heyyyy, who’s cheering? OH, that was me…too…)
PS I do often think this site should have red tape across it – prohibiting anyone under 18 from accessing it – too many big topics tossed about without any sort of resolution or real context…
PSS For anyone who wonders why I haven’t written a list of JQP’s qualities in response to his list – it’s pretty much because for me, with my understanding, that would be pointless, and perhaps harmful. I’d rather spend time (if I had it) being happy and tipsy with him (and his wife) in Santa Barbara.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
LOVED JQP’s last food for thought comments on the ‘finding $400.00′ post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
The DB Responds
Earlier, some folks asked the great DB behind the curtain for some details on applied quantum computing. Well, he responded but in his normal science blog. It’s written for the layman is a great read:
http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2007/11/learn_quantum_theory_in_ten_mi.php
===================================================
Now, I don’t want to spark questions about me being DB again just because we argue from the same side, have something to do with computers, and because I’m putting up his link here. For the record, I did commercial computer architecting (operating systems), and DB does academic research on a completely new field of computer architecture. (He gets to play with the cool stuff, basically.) I know next to nothing about quantum computers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Dr. Drain Dryer has really got to work on controlling that right-side lip lick habit of his. It’s so entertaining to watch him lick himself that it’s hard to listen to him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Hello, unlike jqp, I have little time to converse with you all. But I do enjoy the little time I have here. Ironically, when I talk to someone outside my faith constructively it actually deepens my belief. Not because I think I’m right, but because when you pose these questions to me, I actually spend my free time searching for the answer. I am still searching for the answer to “why God would annhilate the gay community of sodom but let Lot have incest with his daughters.”
I obviously find incest repulsive and have gay friends. So this doesnt sit well with me and am hoping for some enlightenment.
However, I still believe Jesus Christ is more than just an amazing human being.
again I am being cut short.
I havent read anything about Dr. Dyer. Saw him once on wttw. One only has to look at his actions to know if what he is peddling is b.s. or not.
i.e. 2 or 3 divorces.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
“I don’t think it is very scientific or rational to deny/disclaim that which can’t be measured or understood fully… yet. (Otherwise, why not write ‘The End’ on the big book of scientific knowledge now?)”
You’re missing the point. Science does not claim to have all the answers. It is its opponents that make that claim against it. What is being said is that the spiritual speculation has no basis on which to be claimed as undiscovered territory. None.
Look at this way: Did any of the early superstitions even come close to understanding our universe? Were the ones who originally thought knocking on wood (trees), because they thought that spirits lived on tree tops, ahead of scientific discovery? No. They were off. Way off. The very things that science wound up discovering could not have been expected by anyone. In the 20th century, it turned out that the universe didn’t work like anyone could have fathomed. And what is yet to be discovered by scientific inquiry you most likely cannot fathom today. (Neither can I.) The ancient Sumarians had no idea that a little point of light they were tracking was this monstrously huge spray of dust we now call crab nebula.
So, no one says science knows it all. What is said, is that the new age mystics are no better than the ancient Sumarians. What is around the corner is terms of discovering the mechanics of our universe is probably nowhere near how you and I think it works. It is not only unknown, but unfathomable to us. And the “spirit world” concept that really is a very old cultural meme (look it up on Google, Metallicajoe) passed down through time and is nothing more than a hazy reflection of earth life. It does not embrace any modern knowledge. It is likely to go down with knocking on wood.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
What I loved from JQP’s post:
“4. The individual who found the $400 dollars and kept it. Actually, if he had listened to Dyer’s message he would have returned the money not keep it. That kind of anecdote shows a misunderstanding of what Dyer is aiming at with his manifestation. He says in one book, “Will you win the lottery? No! But you’ll feel like you did.” It is not about acquiring a wade of cash. Keeping the $400 was not the moral action.
Food for thought.”
Thank goodness for copying and pasting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
“It’s so entertaining to watch him lick himself that it’s hard to listen to him.”
Ha! LOL! Well, you know what they say. If you could do it too, you’d probably never leave the house.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
“Ironically, when I talk to someone outside my faith constructively it actually deepens my belief.”
That’s fine. There’s no way I can think the way you do (I just cannot see the bible but a collection of writings from superstitious men during superstitious times), but that does not mean I do not respect your belief. My questions are sincere. But I cannot respect the concept of the Christian-Judeo-Islamic vengeful god. I would rather rot in hell than worship anything destroys life. But that’s just me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Gosh I wish I time for at least one more long winded post.
DANG!
Short version: I have no family members who are scientists who believe that science knows everything. They consider it a MODE of learning -an M.O.
I also have no family members who are scientists (accept a brother in law for a split second) – who discounts any and all “wisdom literature” that has been around for thousands of years.
(However, most scientists/people I know distinguish between the above mentioned wisdom literature, and the ‘knocking on wood’ variety – and so I don’t worry so much about people getting it all confused as often as you do.)
Anyway my friend, this seems to be more pertinent between you and I on this blog than for anyone else who is reading or writin’ on it.
Thought you made some gorgeous points about science, the past, and present in above post.
.
Gave me a wonder surge
Man this short version was LONG.
The bartender is cutting me off now. (For the literalists, that was a joke.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Andrew –
The answer is simple – god would not destroy gays thats just ridiculous and ill have to agree with jqp when he says he would never worship a vengeful god – a god that uses violence to solve his problems is just silly and that is the main reason why people choose not to believe in god all together cuz of the evil reputation the bible gives.
WE ARE ALL ONE – we are all connected – there is an energy of the whole that runs through everything which i call god – there are low energys which make up things that we can see and touch and there are high energys like thoughts that are non local meaning they are everywhere and nowhere at the same time. And you cannot kill thoughts. Now while our physical bodies change by the minute i believe there is a part of us that never changes and that part of us is nonlocal as well and when we die, i believe there is a part of us that still transcends.
On a different note, i think Dyers main message is saying if you want more in your life then you must give to others, but the hard part is you must not expect anything in return.
Anyway – We are all one – God is all loving does not judge nor punish
JQP – just wondering what are your thoughts on the death penalty?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29th, 2007 at 12:46 am
I will go first –
We kill people for killing people – Now to me thats so stupid its laughable. What are we thinking? How could more violence possibly make it better. Its cleary not working. I think maybe we all need to try and look at the root of the problem which is why we act the way we do and what can we do to change it for the better. In a smarter more experienced world, we would not be killing each other at all, instead we would be sharing everything throughout. Now religions that teach of a vengeful punishing god are not helping this problem one bit. Religions, have for thousands of years, have been dragging at our behavior growth. And our technology growth has been growing much faster. We are like monkeys with cellphones.
Anyways to a logical person i would think it would be obvious that violence can not end violence. Its like the united states going into iraq and trying to kill a religion with guns. Its impossible and there is no winner. But please tell me what YOU think. Thank you and good night!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29th, 2007 at 1:15 am
“just wondering what are your thoughts on the death penalty”
I don’t think it works as a deterrent. It’s been shown many times that crime ebbs and flows regardless of capital punishment laws. This is because typically murder is a crime of passion and no one thinks at the time, “I could get the chair if I do this.” They’re angry and lash out without thinking about legal consequences. So, I believe that is largely why it fails to deter.
But I have to say that the unusually heinous crimes I believe do merit it (i.e. I don’t pity the Ed Gein’s of the world), but I don’t think it stops them.
Now, my brother is a deputy, and at the Lost Hills station, which I believe is near HAGD (I think she’s almost our neighbor; we live in Westlake Village. And the public knows that station as the one where James Mee works–the guy who arrested Mel Gibson. In any case, anyone who lives a cop’s live, even if Malibu is on their patrol, has a completely different perspective. And as a family member you come to respect their position and see it to some degree. But politically, I’m pretty much center-left until you start talking business and capitalism, then I veer center-right. (I never go very far right, though.)
“And you cannot kill thoughts.”
Well, there are documentaries that show people awake during brain surgery (they’re skulls are open) and they apply millivolts of electricity and, indeed, create new thoughts. The patient will say, when a small wire is touched to the brain, “it tastes like a ham sandwich.” Or “I hear a band playing in the next room.” And so on. Various places consistently produce the same various thoughts in the patient. (That is how they mapped out brain functions at one time.)
Therefore, it follows that the thoughts can be short circuited, too. That is, a neural network can be short circuited and the thoughts it once produced cease. The thought is killed outright.
There is a neurological disorder in stroke patients, which I believe is called music agnosia, if I remember correctly. In any case, the condition is that they can no longer recognize songs–not music but songs. (Bear with me.) I bring this up because often when I am talking to someone who tends to believe that thoughts originate someone beyond the brain (which you’re implying), they also believe that the experience of music is also a function of something metaphysical. But this disorder shows something extraordinary. The brain buffers approximately 12 notes at a time. (Funny, but the western scale has 12 notes.) Music is phrased as “tension and release.” That is, as each successive chord and/or note progression builds the brain temporarily associates it with the last chord and/or note. So, if I play a G chord then you just experience a G chord. But if I play a C chord just before I play the G chord, you experience something different. (Up to 12 notes and then you start to lose the connection.) This creates a sensation of tension.
Take the 3 famous chords of Louie, Louie. At the end of the measure, you feel like the chord needs to resolve itself. If you play, then play the chords C, F and G (or any I, IV, V chord progression) then that G chord makes you “feel” like it needs to go back to the C chord because C is where it started. The G is the tension, and the successive C is the release.
People who suffer from music agnosia lose this buffering ability–the ability to feel tension and release. Therefore, each successive chord and/or note is independent and discreet and has no connection to the last chord/note. To them, each note stands on its own and collectively the notes do not comprise any sensation of a song. Thus, they can no longer recognize songs–but they hear pitch, can tap out rhythms, and still hear the music. The music but not the song!
Therefore, it is pretty conclusive that the sensation of music (which I’m personally very, very sensitive to) is a function of brain buffering, not something metaphysical. It can be shown that songs can be completely formed in the brain.
Additionally, so much of one’s identity is simply their memory. Take away the memory, as strokes can do, and they lose their identity. There is out-and-out cause and effect with the physical brain and thoughts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29th, 2007 at 10:34 am
The all loving god
The Indo-Eurpoeans created the vengeful deity concept for a reason: to explain the world’s indifference to life. Every culture’s religion has a concept of evil spirits to explain the hostility of nature. The all loving god is now coming into favor because we have tamed so much of that hostility in our immediate environment. (By we, I mean specifically western civilization. You won’t find the all-loving god concept in the remote parts of the world where conditions are the most harsh.)
How can you deny the indifference of the world? Natural disasters, meteorites, red dwarfs in the milky way (a real possibility that one will fry us one day), diseases, etc. Nature in its raw state is neither kind nor coddling. It is out-and-out dangerous. (Spend a night in the Congo by yourself sometime.)
How can an all loving god allow that to be your world? Would you create such an environment for your children? Would you still believe if you never knew a civilized world built by humans?
All life is connected
Are you really spiritually connected to the bubonic plague virus? Or to a dust mite? Or to paramecium? Do you feel a spiritual connection with the enzymes now crawling on your eyelashes? Most likely, you didn’t even know they were there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
“I obviously find incest repulsive and have gay friends. So this doesnt sit well with me and am hoping for some enlightenment.”
Well, Christanity has taken a decided postion on this. This is the problem of dogma; the writers come from a different time and didn’t really think things through. (If they’re wrong about that, can’t they be wrong about a lot of other things?)
There’s really no avoiding it for the ones who need to have something beyond our life; you have to roll your own if you want to avoid some of the immoral (oh, the irony) positions strict ideology puts you in.
Then, of course, you’re making it up as you go.
I personally think morality is simple. For it cannot be moral if it is done for salvation, fear of God, to please a deity, or any other reason. That is because morality becomes the means to an end and is, thus, an oxymoron. Morality (I like the word ethically better myself) must be the end in order for it to be true. It must be its own reward. And all it really is at the end of the day is helping out others where they need help. End of story. No rituals, no asking the sky, no wishing, no expecting justice and rewards in the end, no thank yous–no expectations. Just take action.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
JQP,
dear one
,
let’s skip the geographic references if possible.
I know you didn’t mean anything by it (sort of friendly acutally). But whether what you wrote is right or wrong, I’d rather be the one to reveal any such info (boundaries).
Thanks compadre.
(And just so everyone knows, even I get bored reading my posts – so when I don’t “add” info to what is being put out there – from here on out, remember, it doesn’t mean that I think there isn’t additional/pertinent info to add… just trusting that the convo will be much more interesting with more varied voices.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I’d rather be the one to reveal any such info
You did that, not me. I’m not sure why after you invited everyone over you suddenly became paranoid. But, okay. Not a problem. I mean, it’s only narrowed down to about 3 million people. (I defy anyone to locate where I am exactly.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I’m sorry, HAGD, but I don’t get you at all. What you take seriously absolutely mystifies me. I remember when you thought I might be causing legal slander to Wayne Dyer because I typed it on the Internet. LOL! It’s just laughable! I’m sorry, but it is. Do honestly think someone is going to hunt you down from your alias? Do you think anyone cares that much? In any case, I will respect your wishes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
wait, wait wait. I see I missed an opportunity, HAGD.
Why not manifest an invisible shield? After all, I believe you are among those who believe in magic and a guiding universe. Isn’t this a good time to employ it? Would that not make a very convincing case for your point of view?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Hey, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings JQP.
I LIKE knowing we MAY be neighbors.
And – I know you are a better reader than what you just expressed about my take on manifesting. I’m not a black and white thinker about any topic.
One of my earliest posts was about my take on manifesting. For me, the term manifesting means simply – to bring into being. One can bring a shift in consciousness into being – as Ghandi and Mendella did (previous post). Or, for me, when I look at anything that is man-made: whether it is a building, a blog, a movie, or an airplane – I simply see it as something that began as an idea -something non-material. But something that became material through MAN’s/WOMAN’s efforts.
(Once flew thousands of miles in a tiny one engine plane – with a small hole in the door that I could cover and uncover with my finger. Felt pretty clear while up in the air that while my mind told me that I was in some external physical situation, it ALSO told me that I was in that situation purely because of a lot of people’s thoughts and hard work. Sort of like flying in a thought machine
.
Okay, JQP, don’t take any of the rest of this personally (unless it makes you feel personally good
…………
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 4:20 am
Hi Everyone.
Bear with me if you can.
With Thanksgiving barely behind us, and the holidays (for me) approaching, I’d like to leave a better post than my last – and perhaps greet, or check in on everybody sometime in the New Year…
2008.
Much of humanity is thrashing and hurting; however, sometimes the darkest times bring us the greatest opportunities. And a New Year, a soon to be new US president, new understandings, new bridges – could bring us endless possibilities to unite.
I’m going to separate this post so that it doesn’t appear as ‘long-winded’…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 4:44 am
In terms of the topics on this blog – I think they are fun when they are talked about creatively, and with a certain understanding (that I wished all of us shared). I must admit however, that while those topics may be jumping off points, the more substantial messages that give them context and meaning are for me much more important.
JQP often mentions the sense that he feels some of us take for granted (or are even unaware of) the contributions that the field of science has made – when we/someone posts. I actually adore science – even if I haven’t expressed it clearly (I’m often responding more personally to a post with a link dismissing something or other – as opposed to addressing my wider view of science).
I would like to write a few things however about what I do believe the wisdom of the ages has brought to the table as well.
I think, when given a realistic context for what is possible (in terms of dating human events that occurred thousands of years ago) that we can still find extremely significant contributions which philosophy, and, inspired spiritual teachings, have contributed to our understanding of healthy, loving, responsible, living.
I am not a scholar in theology, nor philosophy – and so, I speak from only basic knowledge and education/information. However, I think one of the most important things to consider when assessing the value of “spiritual teachings” – is to look at how those teachings encouraged the evolution of the society at that time.
For example: it’s easy to assume that there was always a judicial system. But in many nomadic societies, there was no cohesive judicial system. Thus, when Moses (or potentially others before him) declared the ten commandments as moral guidance (I wouldn’t get too worried here about details ie; sort of difficult to know exactly when he was born etc. due to the factual nature of the world and communication at that time) – those
” is significant – in that, it was actually a guideline that implied not necessarily – vengeance, but fairness. A simple system for having a consequence fit a crime. “Don’t stone someone to death because they stole some bread,” for example. What may seem harsh now, or basic, was potentially neither at the time that it was expressed.
commandments in many ways provided guidance/an unofficial judicial system. Stealing (things/people/wives/slaves), killing, pirating, etc. were often common occurrences. Often, small, poorly-knit societies had to decide how to resolve grave matters independently. Thus, the tenant ‘thou shalt not kill,’ – reiterated over the centuries, is really quite meaningful. Even the statement “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
When you look at different centuries, and the religious/or spiritual leaders that became identified with those eras, perhaps try to assess what the individual teachings offered at that time that lead to an increasingly civilized society.
Many of these significant contributions included:
increased understanding of current morality
drive toward becoming more just
a focus upon simplicity and truth
an understanding of the importance of forgiveness and gentleness due to an increased value and understanding of peace
an ever-increasing respect for life and for one’s fellow man
an increasingly important emphasis on the equality of all –
regardless of sex, heritage, or the color of one’s skin.
Of course one can say that there have been religious wars since there have been religions.
However, it may be more accurate to say that there have been humans warring since there have been humans.
That war/cruelty/abuse exists because human beings war over many things (resources, greed, etc) – and religion is simply one of the casualties of this quality. Not the cause.
It can be challenging at times to separate the core spiritual teachings (that much
have created (some of which for me have been extremely helpful – but some of which has definitely seemed to obscure the elemental points.)
of our own society has benefited from), from the interpretations, additional writings, and extraneous material (and superstitions and hoopla) that hundreds of years of well-meaning “talking heads”
But I think each one of us is capable of independently investigating situations and truth.
There are many resources out there available to do so.
One can always go to a university and study philosophy or theology.
Or, a more unique resource: even if you are not aware of the B’hai faith – it is one potential avenue that offers quite a bit of information regarding spiritual teachers – within the context of their cultural environment. Simply put, this faith has done a lot of leg-work (highly educated) in understanding the cultural climates, societal mores, and the impacts that specific teachers and philosophers had in guiding and/or re-directing societies at different times.
If you do believe in God (like so many of the individuals who have posted here), know that there are many resources available to help you assimilate information, and unite it in a more coherent fashion. (If that is what you’re seeking.)
(A poster recently worried about a biblical story that seemed to be causing him pain. I only wish to offer this individual – and others like him/her – OPTIONS for sorting what may be the significant from the lesser significant issues… so as to find more peace.)
And for those for whom these issues are not currently issues – well, I take the Wayne Dyer approach (not sure if this is actually the Wayne Dyer approach – but JQP had it in one of his posts, so…
:
Whether Dyer believes this or not, I do – I don’t think one needs to chase after things that aren’t important to them right now. I do have a deep trust that growth itself is a natural process. And I also think that as individual as we all are – that we do need to connect the dots in the ways that make sense for us – so that our own individual journey and understanding is just that – a journey that leads to increased personal understanding.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 4:55 am
NOW, for the fun stuff…
there may be numerous scientific studies already using what I referred to as ‘right brain methodology.’ Never underestimate scientists and their delicious desire to discover and uncover…!
However, since I haven’t done research on this – here is a simple example of what I meant.
If one wanted to study people who had psychic experiences – for me, the brain storming jumping off point would be – to study it in its natural environment first and foremost.
If we want to study something that our fellow man has been talking about (many quite humbly) for centuries – it would might work better if the study approached the topic in it’s own habitat.
What if a study could place an electronic device that one could access while in the shower – when one felt in the mood? What if one could carry a device with them over a long period of time, and only utilize it when one actually FELT what might be called a psychic flash? I don’t know… but I’m guessing there are many ways to respectfully study this area – that allow individuals a greater sense of dignity – and provide more accurate outcomes.
I say this only because the standardized lab stereotype seems to be in direct opposition to my personal (limited) experiences with this topic.
(And although JQP made a comment quite a while back about me falling for psychic frauds – I don’t believe I’ve ever commented about anyone else’s psychic experiences. Only my own interesting experiences in this area. However, I do think that I’d probably rate pretty low on the scale of what would be called ‘psychic ability’.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 5:17 am
Now why did I decide to write all of this tonight?
Because I’d really like to let this blog roll a long without me for quite a while.
I have a lot of hope for this entire world in 2008.
Maybe we can all find ways of unifying thoughts, and joining forces.
What better time than in this upcoming year?
So.
I have a lot of work to do.
I really want to do my work, live my life, and enjoy the upcoming holidays
(I’ll be thinking about all of you by the way
And I’m sure I’ll want to check in on everyone sometime in the New Year.
JQP, I loved reading your post about music by the way.
I really think you’re supposed to offer the world a bigger gift with that talent of your’s.
I also loved the way you handled the recent licking comment. We are all in one boat.
And it seems so much better to extend everyone some class and grace and HUMOR,
even when we disagree… or don’t understand each other… yet.
Well.
. Be a good fearless leader on this site, and provide a microcosm (that counter-acts the global political macrocosm) that reflects the values you articulate so well. It’s only rational and moral to be tolerant, respectful, and empathetic… of course 
You and I are firmly in one camp together: the political
Everyone, have a wonderful next couple of months.
And have a wonderful holiday – in whatever way that means for you.
See y’all in 2008?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 5:49 am
And just in case JQP got way too much tlc in the above posts
,
special good wishes to my Hana girl…
to DB,
and to Dr. Wayne Dyer too. (!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 10:04 am
That war/cruelty/abuse exists because human beings war over many things (resources, greed, etc) – and religion is simply one of the casualties of this quality. Not the cause.
Not true. Many, many wars were fought to convert the other side. The crusades, the Battle of Salmis, the Persian Wars, were all fought to spread religion. So, relgion *was* the cause.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I forgot to mention the most obvious wars of religion: the current Muslim wars.
Religious conversion has been an underlying motive is many wars. In fact, greed and territority are many times the means to an end–which is widespread conversion of faith; hearts and minds, as they say. It is true that sometimes religion was the means to acquire wealth, as with Elizibeth the first. But converting worldview (including democratizing other nations) is often the ultimate goal. But your post, HAGD, shows almost no understanding of the history of war and religion. To think religion is innocently standing on the sidelines while Muslims were slaughtered during the Crusades (which I think accounts for 12 wars, even though many Crusades were not effective and were side tracked) shows you do not have any familiarity with the subject.
The purpose of Al Qaeda, as stated many times in their videos, is to establish a new Caliphate throughout the Muslim world. That is what they’re fighting about and feel that Israel and the West interfere with that goal. Thus, their driving motive is religious conversion–but of Muslims, which is often overlooked.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
JPQ, I thought your last post, and the one about helping others not-as-means-to-an-end were deep and thought provoking.
I tend to think it`s true that wars are caused by thwarted spiritual motives (?) but I don`t understand that. Deepak Chopra has things to say about that, but I forget the content. (Don`t think he`s a “con-man” `cause he`s terrific. I`m not even sure what a “con-man” means).
Thanks for the link, will check it out.
Dear HuGged (hope you don`t mind we`re affectionately playing with your “name”): Have a good time and Happy Holidays if “we” “don`t see you” till then. Good luck saving the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
PS: JPQ, the other link, DB’s, about applied quantum theory, I did check it, but failed (“unavailable”) . Is it Applied Quantum Theory to Computer Science? That would be, in understatment, above me. It took me months to discover how to get to the end of that blog without scrolling down for ages).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Sorry the link didn’t work, Hana. It’s not computer science, it is general QM and how DB uses it in computers. He uses turkey’s and rubber ducks as a guide. Rather than reposting another failed link, you can get there this way:
1. go to the top of this blog, click the “Blogs” tab
2. in there you will see a link to the new ScienceBlogs site. Click there
3. scroll down until you see “Learn Quantum Mechanics in Ten Minutes”.
I`m not even sure what a “con-man” means
Confidence man. One who falsely gains your confidence in order to take your money. If Deepak is true to word and it is not about money, why did he sue–and lose–for $35 million dollars (I incorrectly said 36 before)? That is a lot of money. In fact, Dyer broke his partnership with Deepak just after that lawsuit (which was in many magazines). Chopra sues for a lot of money and then says this about it:
“Chopra, 53, hit the Weekly Standard with a $35 million lawsuit, referring to it as “an act of love” meant to lift the magazine to “a higher state of awareness.”
Come on, people! Really? He’s a liar. And Uri Geller is a known many-time-exposed fraud and he teams up with him. So, the point is that he is always litigating for money, he drives an S500 Mercedes (which is a six figure car), and lives in a palace and is preaching a non-materialist message to everyone else! Just like Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Oral Roberts, Jr., etc. They all con people out of their money playing on the public’s naive willingness to buy into their hypocritical message: “do as I say, not as I do!” (You can find all this data on the web.) On the other hand, Dyer recently sold all his material possessions including awards.
http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/03/07/chopra/index.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
HAGD, I read your butterfly poem in…that other place. I would say that painting a heart-warming picture, as you did, around a butterfly is pretty natural because they are non-threatening to humans. I realize your motive was not answer a writing challenge, but to showcase some of the beauty in nature as a metaphor for your own transformation. And that it did.
But the backdrop of your poem was also that there is beauty if you look hard enough. Okay. Sorry, but I cannot let that go because I don’t believe there is beauty everywhere. Some things are, some things are not. So, if indeed there is beauty in all life if we look hard enough, please write a similar poem for necrotizing fasciitis, which is a life form certainly hiding its beauty waiting to be unleashed. If you want to know what it is, look here:
http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/necrotizing-fasciitis-flesh-eating-bacteria-topic-overview
==============================================================
If you can show the spiritual connection to that life form and its inherent beauty, then I will concede that I was wrong and really everything in nature is wonderful but I just couldn’t see it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
A Little Deepak Wisdom
If you have happy thoughts, then you make happy molecules. On the other hand, if you have sad thoughts, and angry thoughts, and hostile thoughts, then you make those molecules which may depress the immune system and make you more susceptible to disease.
================================================
And we can fly! Wheeee!
Chopra’s book Return of the Reishi promotes the idea that meditators can levitate. Chapter 13 describes his personal experience with “lifting off,” which he calls “the first threshold in yogic flying”:
As the meditator begins to practice, he lays down a pattern of repetition in which the body more and more begins to understand what the mind wants. In scientific parlance this is called behavioral conditioning. In common language, he is simply acquiring a habit. Mundane as it sounds, flying is simply a habit. Over time, the body stops shaking and, unexpectedly, while doing nothing more than the same practice he has done in the past, the person accomplishes the result. His body lifts up and goes forward.
================================================
I will give $1000 to anyone’s charity who can demonstrate this to me personally.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 am
There is many substitutions for faith but there is none for God.
HAPPINESS comes from outside conditions and depending on those conditions one can tell if another is happy or not.
JOY comes from an unsuspected resource within, God if you may – It thrills my heart that talk is just another substitution for what is already known whether one understands or not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:39 am
We are people who have everything we need in front of us
We just don’t know what we want
Some people want to live, others just live to want
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 am
We all make a mistake here an there and
if you worry about it you just made two.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Dyer has highjacked terms (like energy an consciousness) to elevate his ideology (not philosophy) of selfishness. It is pure navel gazing that omits others and sets a persons focus only on their own (more than abundant) desires and wants.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 pm
I am amazed at the people this false teacher has
spell bound and believing in his hog-wash about giving up everything and owns a home in hawaii ?
And where else and what else, how much of that old rotten cash has he accumulated with his books
and seminars, cds etc. He is teaching new age and
tao and re-incarnation and all kinds of gobbly-gook, he says you came from no where and you are going to no where, heard that tonight flipping channels, kinda confusing I would think, doing handrolls, I guess that makes what he is saying
authentic and true right ? Well, better not die
believing and embracing his theology of life and he himself had better know Jesus Christ in the full pardon of his sins, we are going to live forever somewhere, heaven or hell and our goodness
certainly don’t please God or he would not have
sent his son to die for our sins, we were born totally depraved, lost and undone, without God or his Son, better read the bible[KJV1611] not just any book they call a bible, but the textus-receptus[original text] not a revision or regurgitation of another human being, I stake my
eternity on what I have said, and peace ? Yes I have peace that flows like a river !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:34 am
Hello Friends,
Sorry to have taken so long in getting back to those who have responded and/or made references to my post. Not that I am any busier than anyone else I was just wandering about on some astral plane of existence with the good Dr. Dyer. Bones had more wisdom in his communicator than that Box of Hammers Dyer does in his entire left or right brain combined. How ’bout them semantics. You miss a few days here (on this blog), and there’s a new antibiotic curing the world’s diseases. Dis-Eases. Please excuse the rambling. I think I’m caught in an episode of the Twilight Zone wherein a group of people who think they’re so smart (I’m including myself here so no one get their undies in a bunch)are actually in Ken Kesey’s mental ward under the influence of Nurse Ratched’s Mind F- – -.
Dearest Kate. Who says I need proof to call Dr. Dyer a fraud? But anyway my belief that Dyer is a fraud, because I do like when people back up their statements, is based upon his premise or whatever you would like to call it that if one maintains a focused intention upon what one desires then one will obtain that goal. Reality just doesn’t work that way. I can already hear the Dyer pundits saying that it does, and how do I know that it doesn’t. The onus is on the claimant to back up his theory. A task which Dyer fails to accomplish. It is my opinion that Dyer knows damn well he can’t back up his theory (if that is what he calls it), and is making his statements in lieu of any facts, and I think he knows this. But whatever, that is my opinion. It’s just like the belief by some that they have had contact with aliens, ufo’s etc. (abductions, ghosts, mind reading, you get the picture), until I see some concrete proof on such matters than I can’t buy it. Thus, as far as I am concerned when Dyer makes his statements regarding the power of intention without any evidence to back them up, (i.e. scientific experimentaion resulting in proof positive outcomes)and on top of that is selling books to the public for outrageous amounts of money he is then, im my book, a fraud. And it don’t freakin matter (yeah I said “don’t”)that he isn’t holding a gun to anyone’s head, he’s a fraud of the moral type at the very least. Same as someone who sells you a garbage stock. If the company is crap, and the broker says it is great even though he didn’t force me to buy it, you know what, he is still a fraud. Dyer is selling garbage, a bill of goods worth nothing. If Doc D. went ahead, and demonstrated to me by, let’s say making a statement within my earshot that he intended to become the #1 urinal cake salesman in all the land, and then it happened within, hell I’ll even give him his whole toolbox life, and then after that made nine more statements of intentions based upon his focused thought(I’m assuming he’s going to think real hard on all this. I’m sure it doesn’t (see I know the right usage) work by having the intention in mind on becoming #1 urinal cake guy— he probably has to dwell on said “cakes”, and the action of transacting a “cake” sale with prospective buyers like the Red Lobster chain of restaurants or Willy down the block who really likes urinal cakes, rumor has it,— and then not really honing in on mental detail of the act) and, assuming all experimental controls are in effect, the large majority of those ten total statements of intention “came to be”, then at that point I would probably believe his claims were worth something. But I still ain’t buying the book. God forbid we should rely on the scientific method. Hey, maybe the good Dr. means well for all I know, in which case he is clueless to reality. Dr. Fraud. I love you all.
Man that was work. I hope I made sense. Dear Miss Have A… I hear what you are saying about your creative process. Very often I get into the zone, and just let the volts rip from synapse to synapse. But, and ironically I think this kind of relates to the notion of grounding one’s theories in time tested scientific procedure, after you’ve let the gates open and the river run free then, if one wants a story that flows well, one must build some organized trenches for those mindful/spiritually induced ideas to travel through. A creative writing professor once recommended to a class I was in a book called “Writing Down the Bones” by Natalie Goldberg. Sorry didn’t work for me. It was basically about free writing which I get, but I personally don’t find necessary or useful although I’m sure many writers do. I guess what I think is, a writer (fiction writer) is a creature who gets results by focusing chaos or,honing fury or well, Imagine you get it, and we are probably not so far apart after all. I don’t know if this is the place for this but if anyone is interested in exchanging writing pieces for mutual constructive criticism….I,don’t know it’s just a thought. I wouldn’t mind some feedback… I think…not really sure actually.
Hey JQ- LOve that lineage. Am I left brained in my approach? Good question that does not have an easy answer. I appreciate the inquiry. My answer is that I think I am a little bit of country and I’m a…oops I mean I’m a part left and part right. Better yet I’m a combo deal. There is no doubt in my mind that the greatest fiction ever written was executed via the use of those elemental tools we might say are holed upon within the hemisphere of the left brain. However, that is not to say that the wild tail of the scorpion did not whip its tail from its home over yonder, in the right brain. That wild free wheeling side of the mind. For me my best writing has come from the stuff that I labored over. Stuff that I have revised until my head was ready to, no I won’t use that dreaded cliche, until my head was ready to dismantle itself into its component parts rather abruptly. I think I have an imagination fit for a loony bin which is a good thing as far as my writing goes. Not that my writing is about “crazy” things, but rather that I’d like to think that it has no bounds. Good writing to me comes from the imagination, and yet can be about the most mundane thing in the world. The writing is the thing. The writing itself. John Gardner wrote that effective storytelling required one to refrain from “narrative interference”. The reader is drawn in, taken hold of and, essentially not let go. The reader when he is sucked in as such feels a sesation that, to paraphrase Nabokov, is enchanting. Simply put, how it works for me, the creation occurs in my mind(it all comes from the mind of course but hear me), and then that imagery must be translated to the whitness via the hand. That takes a certain control, a certain mastery of words,language. I can tell you that there are sentences, single sentences, that I have reworked more than one hundred times over until I finally had a sentence that I felt worked, that I was pleased with. Two people can write the same exact story, but the one who has mastered his tools comes as close to God, if I may, as a human can get. That’s my opinion. Thomas Mann said writing is like playing king. We write, we create “as if”. As if we were God. Hence the imagination. This is not the God of religion. As a man who is a writer I try to use what I have learned to write as good a story as I possibly can. Examining the work thoroughly. The process-until you can’t process anymore. It makes me nuts sometimes, but I do love it. Using these tools is left brainish one might say. Between Hemingway and Proust there are a million words, but both stunningly transformed imagination into story. The reader, if the writer has really done his job, usually doesn’t even see it, but behind that enchanting story are nuts bolts and “I” beams holding it up. I know when I’ve written my best stuff, there is usually a hammer lying around the site. When I’m done its just a matter of cleaning up my tools. That way the reader gets lost in a world, at least for a suspended moment in time, he thinks is real. Nabokov in his lectures on literture said it better than I can when he spoke on Dickens: “All we have to do when reading “Bleak House” is to relax and let our spines take over. Although we read with our minds the seat of artistic delight is between the shoulder blades. That little shiver behind is quite certainly the highest form of emtion that humanity has attained when evolving pure art and pure science. Let us worship the spine and its tingle. Let us be proud of our being vertebrates, for we are vertebrates tipped at the head with a divine flame. The brain only continues the spine: the wick really goes through the whole length of the candle. If we are not capable of enjoying that shiver, if we cannot enjoy literature, then let us give up the whole thing and concentrate on our comics, our videos, our books-of-the-week. But I think Dickens will prove stronger.”-Nabokov from Lectures on Literature
JHB
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 am
I can tell you that there are sentences, single sentences, that I have reworked more than one hundred times over until I finally had a sentence that I felt worked, that I was pleased with. Two people can write the same exact story, but the one who has mastered his tools…
That’s what I’m talking about when I say writing requires a lot of left minded work. I’m not talking about the story content. Everyone knows that typically has a lot of right-mindedness to it and is the creative part. It is getting the language down that best conveys that creativity that makes or breaks a writer. And sometimes becomes the creative part itself.
You can have the greatest imagination in the world, but if you cannot articulate it then how will anyone know?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 am
Give me someone with great use of language, and they can take the most mundane, overused, unimaginative subject and make it interesting if not a masterpiece.
However, someone who can only regurgitate drival with the grammatical mastery of a ten year old on Ritalin can ruin the most interesting topics with a single word. That was the point I was trying to make all along. I was simply attempting to give useful advice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Question: why do people who claim “what’s in your heart is right” (meaning your feeling of purpose, a sense of metaphysical identity, etc.) when it has such a poor, poor track record? HavAGr8Day wrote a poem about it and I was pondering why anyone would trust something that is wrong so often.
For example, the job your heart told you “was it” or the spouse it told you was “the one!” or, for Dyer, that “Deepak is such a great and honest guy?”
When you’re lost on the road, do you want the driver to go by “his heart” or read a map? Sometimes the heart is right, but more often than not it is wrong!
How many times in your life has your heart been wrong about something you felt was so right at the time? Why trust it then to the really big questions?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
JQP
I agree. The funny thing is very often people think they are using their head when they are actually reacting on pure emotion. It is not always easy, I guess, to separate the head and the heart.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I believe Wayne Dyer has been listening to the name it and claim it ministers of positive confession regardless of the will of God for one’s
life, you can strive for greatness and wealth and
ask for miracles until you are blue in the face and if it is not the will of God” Thou shalt not have it ” Believe it !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
…if it is not the will of God.
And how do you know the will of God? Because a book written by men you don’t know anything about except what has been passed down in the same manner as any tribal folklore–just like the Native Americans, just like the tribes of New Guinea. Passed through the generations. Why is your folklore any more correct than that of the tribes of the Congo?
Ever play the game of passing a sentence down the line of people only to have it come out wrong on the other end?
Could it be that what was passed on to you–which went through a few hundred thousand people–about the bible was wrong?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Thanks,JQP. Now I understand QM.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 5th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
My pleasure, Hana.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 7th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Actually JohnQPublic it’s really quite incredible how the Bible we read today was passed along through the ages. You seem to have quite a bit of certainy about your position so I was wondering how you learned this about the Bible, and if you could elaborate. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 7th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
That most of what it says historically is unverifiable by other accounts and, moreover, it contradicts itself at almost every page. For example, what is says about Joseph’s father. Matthew says one thing, Luke says another. Or who was at the empty tomb? Matthew says, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” Yet Mark and John say something else.
There never has been any evidence found that says the Jews were slaves in Egypt.
So on and so forth. These points are well documented. The gospels can’t even agree on Jesus’ last words. Jesus left no written documents and there were no first hand accounts of him. What was written about him was over 100 hundred years after his death.
The bible not only lacks supporting accounts (especially on Jesus’ life), but can’t keep the story straight itself. It is flawed because the men who wrote (and the emperor who edited) had political motives.
The question is why would you put so much faith into something that contradicts itself?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 9th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
There are no contradictions in the KJV Bible, only “apparent” contradictions that go away after careful study.The four gospels are complementary, for example, different people were at the tomb at different times. About Egypt, when we find that some dynaties and Pharaohs overlapped, we find that the dates exactly match the Bible. The Bible has no errors, but some people do not fully understand the Bible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 9th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Nonesense. Even Jesus’ birth year is inaccurate and is not known, much less the day.
KJV is in dispute, too. (KJV was the bible as a result of the Council of Nicea.)
How do you explain these?
SHOULD WE KILL?
Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill.”
Leviticus 24:17 “And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.”
vs.
Exodus 32:27 “Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor.”
I Samuel 6:19 ” . . . and the people lamented because the Lord hadsmitten many of the people with a great slaughter.”
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 “Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not;but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.”
Numbers 15:36 “And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”
Hosea 13:16 “they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall bedashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up.”
SHOULD WE TELL LIES?
Exodus 20:16 “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Proverbs 12:22 “Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.”
vs.
I Kings 22:23 “The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of allthese thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.”
II Thessalonians 2:11 “And for this cause God shall send them strongdelusion, that they should believe a lie.”
SHOULD WE STEAL?
Exodus 20:15 “Thou shalt not steal.”
Leviticus 19:13 “Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither robhim.”
vs.
Exodus 3:22 “And ye shall spoil the Egyptians.” Exodus 12:35-36 “And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians.”
But, to my earlier point with another, do you then believe that incest, which went unpunsished by God, is less of a sin than homosexuality? Do you not think the God of the bible acts in such immoral ways as to rival Hitler?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 9th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Have you ever asked yourself why is God and Jesus depicted in the same image as those who claimed him? I mean, it’s not like the deity turned out to be an Asian woman, or Jesus an Aboriginol. It is the folklore of a particular culture that pictured their saviour in their own image and not someone else’s. They turned out to be white males, just like their authors. Fancy that. Why were they not images from humans who actually populated more of the earth at the time?
There are no accurate accounts of Jesus. No one knows what he looked like, when he was born, and, moreover, no first hand documents of his resurrection–over a hundred years after the supposed event before anything was written about such a tremendous event.
It all adds up to cultural folklore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 9th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
And how do you know the Qur’an is not the one true book? What proof is there that the Christian bible is more correct than the Qur’an?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 8:34 am
If all of these questions had final, definitive answers then there would be no room for faith.
If there were no room for faith, there would be no path to salvation.
The shroud of Turin is a perfect example. There are many theories about the image, but nothing conclusive. They found paint on it, but also blood. They can not verify the method in which the image was created, but some say they can replicate it. The cloth was carbon dated to the “wrong” time, but pollen found on it was traced to the Levant at the time of Christ. In the time that it was carbon dated to, they would not have realized that people were crucified with nails through the wrist, so if it was a fake the wounds would most likely have been in the palms of the hand. In addition, how would one explain the Roman coins on the eyelids if it were a counterfeit? How would they have known about this detail in the Middle Ages before the practice was discovered through historical investigation? The shroud is perfectly designed to be the focus for faith or disbelief…and guaranteed to be by your own (free will) choice.
Nothing worthwhile is easy. If it was so easy to understand God and His purpose without any effort or wonder or mystery, what would be the point of our even being here?
Oh…I forgot, JQP…that IS your point, isn’t it: that there is none?
Tragic way to live, right or wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 8:57 am
It’s only tragic from your perspective Gary. For those of us who’ve stopped drinking the distructive koolaid of Christianity, what with it’s old Testament wrathful God, it’s absolute declaration that it and it alone is the answer, it’s destructive force on huge numbers of people over the ages, including slaves (minor thing to forget to mention, Jesus, minor thing), homosexuals, and woman, it’s absolutely boring carrot sticks (I for one find my mortal life more interesting than an extremeley selfish “salvation.”), etc, etc.
Just because you can’t live your life fully without some crutch to justify your existance, doesn’t mean that there aren’t people like myself, and probably JohnQPublic, and many others who can live fullfilling, interesting, loving, and jubulient lives without your crutch.
But then again, your religion has presaged what to say to people like me. Call me the devil, etc. In the good old days your people would have burned me at the stake. Such a compassionate bunch.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 10:40 am
“Oh…I forgot, JQP…that IS your point, isn’t it: that there is none?”
No. What I said is that we make up our own point. I have no need for a point (i.e., purpose to my life) external to myself. I have defined my own purposes, and I live those out. I am not preoccupied with trying the interpret a will external to myself because there are so many guides (religions and beliefs) to choose from.
So, obviously this is what everyone else is doing, too, since there is nothing near close to a consensus on God’s will. So, regardless that Dyer is saying we all have a gnawing feeling that is our purpose, or that the various religions each say they know what God intended for me, each is really just making it up, too–or simply accepting what is handed down in their culture without question.
One of my purposes is to call fraud or misrepresentation when I see it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Earlier I offered a good amount of money for charity if anyone could personally demonstrate that they could levitate through meditation as Chopra had written. So, for all those claiming that some form of pyschokinesis or another exists, no one is taking me up on it?? This is an opportunity to not only demonstrate to all skeptics (because I will also film it and will have a professional magician on hand to examine it) what you believe is true, but to help a charitable cause in one fell swoop.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
shroud of Turin
This didn’t even turn up until 1,300 years after Jesus. (It was found after the middle ages, by the way.)
Actually, there was a documentary that was pretty conclusive. When a person is illuminated by candles alone around the lying body, and an artist brushes their picture with only that illumination, that strange negative effect is perfectly replicated. Just like the crop circles (which the originators have documented how they made perfect circles), it was shown how it was done using only the materials of the 14th century. Case closed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
I think Einstein would tell Newton that no case is ever closed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
1. According to Christian legend, the Image of Edessa, (known to Orthodox Christians as the Mandylion, a Byzantine Greek word not applied in any other context), was a holy relic consisting of a square or rectangle of cloth upon which a miraculous image of the face of Jesus was imprinted — the first icon (“image”). According to a legend which developed over many centuries, this image was imprinted into a cloth during a visit of Jesus to the King.
The first record of the existence of a physical image was in the sixth century, in the ancient city of Edessa (now Urfa). The image was moved to Constantinople in the tenth Century. The cloth disappeared from Constantinople during the Crusades, reappearing as a relic in King Louis IX of France’s Sainte Chapelle in Paris. It finally disappeared in the French Revolution.
*
2. Possible history before the 14th century: The Image of Edessa
This 10th-century image shows Abgarus of Edessa displaying the Image of Edessa. The oblong cloth shown here is unusual for depictions of the image, leading some to suggest that the artist was influenced by seeing the Shroud.According to the Gospel of John (John 20:5-7), the Apostle Peter and the “beloved disciple” entered the sepulchre of Jesus, shortly after his resurrection — of which they were still unaware—and found the “linen clothes” that had wrapped his body and “the napkin, that was about his head.”
There are numerous reports of Jesus’ burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the fourteenth century.[4] However, none of these reports has been connected with certainty to the current cloth held in the Turin cathedral. Except for the Image of Edessa, none of the reports of these (up to 43) different “true shrouds” was known to mention an image of a body.
The Image of Edessa was reported to contain the image of the face of Christ (Jesus) and its existence is reported reliably since the sixth century. Some have suggested a connection between the Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa.[citation needed] No legend connected with that image suggests that it contained the image of a beaten and bloody Jesus. It was said to be an image transferred by Jesus to the cloth in life. This image is generally described as depicting only the face of Jesus, not the entire body. Proponents of the theory that the Edessa image was actually the shroud, led by Ian Wilson, theorize that it was always folded in such a way as to show only the face.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
So, how was something that…”didn’t even turn up until 1,300 years after Jesus…” get painted in the 900′s? (Probably the 500′s).
You will say it was a medieval forgery meant to depict what was in the painting. I would say: are you really sure?
A test of faith?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I have gone to great pains to keep anything personal about me out of this blog. Nobody knows if I am a Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Edinburgh or a homeless guy in Pittsburgh that uses the free internet connection at the City Library.
I will say here, though, that as you now are I once was. I completely rejected the myths of all major religions. I was so arrogant about the folly of faith that I would not even debate it with someone. But, I assure you, when that miracle occurs, when your prayers are actually answered, when God finally reveals himself to you your doubt and disbelief will evaporate like morning dew on a dune in the Sahara.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Seriously, you believe it’s magical? Do you also believe in the tribal lore found in populations around the world and throughout history? Do you believe Thor is the god of wind? At what point do you draw the line of belief? Or do you believe in every myth ever told?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I can only believe what I interpret to have been real. What would your Papuans have though about HDTV?
Remember the ‘Cargo Cults’? Were the flying men magic or reality to them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I do not understand why if you’re willing to accept the idea that an image can be burned magically into material without human activity, why do you not also accept the ancient Norse beliefs of various gods? What settles one in you mind as true, and the others as not true?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Gary, that is what interests me. Why believers in the supernatural accept their own arbitrary line of belief, but reject someone else’s who uses hard evidence as their line. I have yet to find anyone who believes in every magical claim every made because they’d wind up beliving in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, too. At some point they draw the line and say, “I don’t believe that.” Why don’t you believe that? Most likely, because you don’t think it’s possible! Thus, the crux of the matter.
If your criteria is not empirical evidence, and you’re open to anything, then why not Santa Claus, too? I can make up all kinds of reasons why you never catch him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
The comments about wonderment (which new agers think rational thinking ruins) and what spiritualits think is astounding. Really. Is how a negative looking image was burned into material anywhere near as astounding as what relativity uncovered? Could religion ever had predicated that is how our world really works? Are the findings of rational thinking far, far more interesting and thought provoking than any answer religion or spirituality has come up with? Adam and Eve, snakes, apples, old men pushing clouds, elves, fairies, magical tricky ribs, rising from the dead, mysterious arks carrying tablets that cause people to incinerate upon touch, humans created from clay, Medusa, Achilles, and all the other ideas created throughout the ages are boring, uninteresting, and childish compared to the fruits of rational thinking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Hey Gary, Why not cut and paste the rest of those wikipedia
articles?
For example the section on radiocarbon dating is also pretty interesting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Religion has had its chance to run the world. It’s been the backbone of societal structure for thousands of years. It has failed to produce a compassionate, orderly world, as it promised—at least promised in certain parts!–and instead contributed greatly to natural strife. I will give Christianity this: it created a framework from which reason, secularism, and science could emerge, and which in turn started devouring it. And that is the quality of science that is so endearing to me. It’s willingness to devour its own belief system as new evidence emerges. It never settles for idle speculation and it welcomes skepticism with open arms. (Skepticism not speculcation!)
Those with mystic leanings will disagree because they cannot see their own mythologies as speculation—and want their ideas to be validated by reason and science! And science has no room for speculation. And since the faithful can’t get that reasoned validation, the use language like “belief” and “faith.” Because if they could show that their speculation to be true with reason, they would in a heartbeat. Nothing is more satisifying intellectually than when things agree with reason. Faith always has an uneasyiness to it, even for the faithful. That is the irony of the faithful. They say they will take ideas on faith alone, but are more than willing to spell out reasoned arguments why they are right. This is because the human animal cannot help but reason. It is natural and inescapable. If Wayne Dyer takes his ideas on faith alone and has little use for science and reasoning, he would not bring up scientific terms, or research, or write those screeds he publishes. He is attempting to validate his positions with reason–even when they contridict reason.
His books are nothing more that “linear” lines of reasoning. The bible, too, is a system of reasoning in that it constructs lines of thought of why you should think and act in particular ways. (It’s main reason is if you don’t, God will torture you for eternity. Can you image burning for over a quintillion, or octillion years, for behavior based on, say , just a mere eighty years of existence? Think there’s a human motivation behind such a notion?) Disjointed, speculative, and unverifiable reasoning? Absolutely. But these positions of “faith” are actually attempts to establish a chain of reason to convince you of a position. Reasoning is inescapable even for the faithful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Christian reasoning:
Why do you believe in Christianity?
Because of Jesus’ ressurection.
Why do you believe that he ressurected?
Because the bible says so.
Why do you believe the bible is correct on this?
Because I believe the word of the gospels.
At this point the Christian stops the line of reasoning and really saying, “Because I believe it to be so and I do not need any reasoned position.”
If there were more reasoned arguments, say, “because the bible is consistent with X amount of non-religious accounts” or that “it was verified by such and such,” then the Christian would absoulutely use that data without hesitation!
The point: Christians use reasoning for their position so long as it is there, but only jump to “faith” when the reasoning chain runs out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Never have you seen science want to be validated by theology. Let’s face it. Scientific reasoning really is the bottom line for any argument.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 10th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Conversely, religion and spiritual perspectives would love nothing more than to be validated by scientific reasoning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Wikipedia ‘cut and paste’ reply to Dr. Bacon:
*
Radiocarbon dating – Calibration
The need for calibration
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations in the earth’s magnetosphere caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been reduced by the release of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present—the fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect.
The atmospheric 14C concentration may differ substantially from the concentration in local water reservoirs. Eroded from CaCO3 or organic deposits, old carbon may be easily assimilated and provide diluted 14C carbon into trophic chains.
*
If Science was not frequently incorrect in its conclusions then we wouldn’t be so proud of its “self-correcting” nature, would we?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Please also know that I am not defending the infallibility of the Bible or any other book. It just seems to me that those with such a strong belief in the validity of science would recognize how much we now take for granted that was not even conceived of in the past and so should not be so quick to disavow that which we do not yet conceive of.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 9:00 am
“If Science was not frequently incorrect in its conclusions then we wouldn’t be so proud of its “self-correcting” nature, would we?”
Actually, can you name any system of inquriy that has a better track record on correctness? Do you think religion corrects itself when wrong?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 9:03 am
How can you deny how much science has gotten right? The proof is in the technology all around you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I am a 100% believer in Science. I have no argument with the reality of Einstein’s relativity, Bohr’s atom or Planck’s quanta. I believe in the possibility of organic evolution, exploding black holes, neutron stars, etc., etc. Maybe even M-Theory,
But, to answer your earlier inquiry, yes, I also believe in the Norse gods. Why? Because all the various mythologies of men are simply attempts to explain real phenomena that they perceived. The polytheists tried to explain what they saw: wind, animals, the moon and stars, sunrise, life, death. I don’t name it ‘Thor’, but I have heard thunder for myself. I don’t call it ‘Thunderbird’, but I have seen lightning for myself.
So, the question is not what we call a phenomenon but whether it is real or not. Why does every society on Earth believe in ghosts? Mass hallucination? Subconscious archetype? Pre-partum memories? Could it be that someday Science will define an as yet undefined extra-biological energy phenomenon?
You should read the great Mythologist Joseph Campbell. You will be happy to know that he analyzed the western monotheologies exactly the same way as the other cultural beliefs he examines. You will have your concerns about the importance of any one religion over the other validated. But you will also learn that there is a universal reason that gave rise to these beliefs in the first place: unexplained phenomena that needed explanation. Now we have Science. Good. But damn…we still have ghosts. Unless, of course, like the Christians you chastise, you simply disregard what doesn’t fit your paradigm. After all, you’ve never seen a ghost so obviously we have several billion other people whose perceptions are simply wrong.
All I’m saying is that you can’t prove a negative. Therefore, you can not disprove what you do not yet know exists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 10:22 am
You make some good points. But it does come down to this: what is lacking in this life that it is necessary to still have mythology? Once it was the only method of giving answers. But it is now obsolete. We no longer have to look to other-worldlyness in order to have fulfillment or explanation. We can have it here and now in this life.
What purpose does believing in things than cannot be proved serve anymore?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 10:22 am
All I’m saying is that you can’t prove a negative. Therefore, you can not disprove what you do not yet know exists
So you believe that pink elephants rule the world, we are actually all just inside of a gigantic stomach of a dinosaur, aliens live inside of the earth, birds are really secretly angels, Big Bird is a real, atoms are really small universes, that you aren’t really alive? So far we don’t know whether these things exists, so I shouldn’t rule them out?
Don’t you think that the reason why there is so much common, um, history, of religion is, um, history? The commonality has a really really really simple explanation that ain’t got nothing to do with the supernatural.
Of course I never rule out compelte that all the mythology you talk about isn’t real. I just assign a subjective probability which is very very very small (much much worse than my winning the lottery, in my estimation) because I see all sorts of evidence that almost all religions are just making it up.
Several billion people have seen a ghost? I’d love to see that data. (Do you mean “believe in ghosts?” That’s quite different. People also believed that the stars were very near objects, because well, you could see them right there in the sky.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Whoa…tough room.
What about documented instances of children with memories they can not have? You don’t believe in a soul and, therefore, reincarnation so it can only be one of two things: hundreds of purposeless non-profitable hoaxes or some kind of thought transference???
How about the secret Goverment studies in remote viewing? If there had been no statiscal confirmation, would they still be going on?
How about entanglement?
You guys seem to be saying that NOTHING you can’t currently measure or verify could exist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“You guys seem to be saying that NOTHING you can’t currently measure or verify could exist.”
No, I’m saying that mystics, spiritualists and religion get it wrong. Sure there may be something beyond what we can sense, but this bunch of goofs who just make crap up are wrong. They have no systematic, rigorous method other than “I think so.” And what they claim, anyway, is not beyond our senses and can and should be verified. If you can see a ghost, it is not beyond your senses and, thus, can be verified. If you can move things with your mind, it is not beyond your senses and can be verified. Why haven’t any of these magical claims ever been demonstrated to scientists or skeptics? Every time they try they fail or have been proven a hoax. Yes, there have been thousands of documented hoaxs. There’s a lot.
If there are things beyond our senses, then by definition they cannot be discovered through our senses and predictive models is a better measurement. Certainly, it’s better than relying on just someone saying so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
But if you believe in Norse myths, why do you draw the line at the tooth fairy? Show me what you use to determine how one is true and the other not? How do you know what to believe and what not to??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Gary, I know you won’t answer that last question (which is the critical one) because you have no answer other than “I think so” or “I use gut feeling” or something to that affect. If you don’t use empirical evidence, reason, or your senses, then what do you have to determine these claims? Nothing other than you just think so. Is that good enough? Would you allow that to be used against you in a court of law?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
It seems that this conversation is running around on some major tangents. I am a Christian, and not for any other reason than I think it seems to make the most sense. And yes, this includes the arguments made by science. Does being swallowed by a whale sound crazy? Yes. Does Jesus walking on water sound crazy? Yes. People living for hundreds of years, all the earth’s animals on one boat, the red sea splitting? Yes, yes, and yes. BUT, the astronomical probabilities and processes necessary for evolutionary theory to work seem to me to be far far crazier. If God does in fact exist, then the Biblical stories don’t seem all that far fetched, I mean, after all, it’s God we’re talking about here. But if God does not exist, it still doesn’t make it any more easy to believe in evolution. We are given two options. Either God exists and he created everything, or he doesn’t exist and it all started by accident. Given the complexity, beauty, and order within nature and the fact that science cannot disprove God’s existence, it seems the one who turns to complete and utter Chance as being the father of the universe is embracing the weaker of the two explanations. A christian worldview takes these physical evidences and says “this must have come from something ordered, logical, complex, etc.” The end result is in congruence with the source. That doesn’t sound idiotic does it? However, the atheistic worldview looks at the physical world, and asserts that a very complex and intricate process erupted from disorder, and nothingness. Now, you can certainly believe that way. I’m just saying it doesn’t seem to be probable looking at the way the universe functions today. I don’t think it’s enough to smile and shake your head at the “simpleton” Christians and say that science has now given you all the answers. Or even better answers. But I don’t know, I’m no scientist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
“…evolutionary theory to work seem to me to be far far crazier.”
Evolution seems crazier than snakes talking to women? Wow.
Would you say the possibilities that something like entanglement is “astromonical” and just as crazy? QM and relativity has uncovered mechanisms in our world, which have been verified many times over many years, that the religious never could have predicted much less grasp. If you did not know better and I told you about the “twin paradox,” you would probably think that was equally as “astronomical.” But, it’s a fact and a proven one. The answers that are consistent with reality take a long, long time to formulate. You’re making a snap judgement. But then the religious go for the easy quick answers–they invent them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
WOW! After reading most of the postings my head hurts. Seems to me that Tony Robbins , Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, Gary Zukav ( all of which i have invested time and money) have a similiar theme.
After reading Ayn Rand ( the Virtue of selfishness) and some Homer, I am so confused about everything. All I really have is free will.
What to believe? I believe I will have another beer and watch the hockey game.
regards, MR SIV.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 11th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Wow, I guess your right. Believing that snakes turned into things that could talk DOES make much more sense. I guess I am stupid. Your belief sounds much more plausible. (Given billions of years of course, I mean geez, anything can happen then) Or heck, he might have been a really evolved snake, kind of like the ones you believe we’ve become. I guess those things only sound plausible if they come from a science magazine instead of the Bible though. Man, those silly Christians!
Anyway, I’m talking about the law of probablity, and the use of the evidence around us. QM,relativity, and the twin paradox in no way weaken the idea that the universe was created by a supreme being. Surely you can see that the existance of such systems may suggest that very thing. However, such systems existing in a universe that came from nothing into more meaningless nothingness(like you and me) or atoms banging around, as Doug Wilson would say, seems more than a bit ridiculous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 12th, 2007 at 8:58 am
even science and religion are just mere perception to which we have a choice to choose to use to see the world around us.
things become confusing when a new idea or concept comes to us and does not fit in our current perception.
through contemplation one may be able to find a breakthrough.
more often, when a person passes through a state of confusion they get clarity.
Sometimes, they fall apart to their emotions and become frustrated and give up, and cease to contemplate and begin to be govern by their habitual pattern on how to deal with frustration.
they can either go out *there* to find a way to release the emotion so that it is not kept inside.
maybe in a way they know if they kept emotion such as anger or frustration inside it will destroy them sooner or later.
there are certain things we know we just got to do, and we do it. sometimes we may not understand them.
most of which has got to do with things relating to our survival needs. (eat, sleep, etc.)
the feeling that ones view should be right is our own ego, ourself that we have come to know over the years. to ourselves, this is what is true.
Who is still alive (successfully stayed alive) would like to be told or agree that he had been living a lie or they way he had been living had been wrong?
each and everyone’s perception or what they see is their own truth, whether it is shared or not is irrelevant when it personal.
Yes, it is significant when it comes to achieving the same goal.
It is difficult to generalize things, but you can have principle as guideline.
Each circumstances are different, new perception are shaped or changed if we can *see* that a new circumstance we encounter is *different* in some way from what we have perceive before.
in a way, we all have to find our own *truth*
someone may tell you something with conviction on how it is like and even give u evidence of the result.
that in itself is questionable to his experience and whether he/she had been aware of other things around affecting his/her experience and understanding.
if we were to learn everything about life to the smallest atom, is that what you want to do with life?
to only start living after you figure it all out?
yea, we are not exactly given all the answer in life when we were born, we probably knew nuts about this world, and most of which are actually thought to us by someone who is already living in it.
at this moment in time, with what is around us, most of us learn through logical deduction and also looking at patterns, and also using our emotion to gauge and get *feels* for circumstances.
i suppose the one good solution or path we each can take is to use our common sense, and to take what make sense to us, rather than taking everything in as facts.
sometimes life experience and things happen to us so that we can see more possibility that we had never seen it before. yet some see it in their mind and have a feel for it without experiencing it and some how they make it come true.
whichever path we would like to try to *test* out is up to us. and how many times we want to try is up to us.
we can decide how we want to see it:
I will believe it only when i see it
or I will see it when i believe it
which ever works, if it works, great, if it doesnt then give up or try again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 12th, 2007 at 9:22 am
“in a universe that came from nothing…”
Science never claimed that. That was a general population interpretation. Physicists have always said that the laws of physics simply do not apply at the point of singularity and, thus, has no comment.
Rather than weave imginary stories about it to fill the gap of knowledge, they simply say, “we don’t know at this point.”
I’ll take “I don’t know” to the invention of magical creatures any day. I have no need to invent myths in order to make my life significant. I do not need a god or a universal being to make my life significant. I do not need a promise of reward to act morally. I have no desire for any life beyond this one and no desire for eternal golden streets or 70 virgins. That things happen randomly in the universe (weather, meteorites, human freewill, etc.) is pretty obvious. If you believe that there is no randomness and everything happens for a purpose, then nature’s indifference and hostility to its inhabitants makes no sense. A being that creates and then plants little traps to destroy its creations makes no sense.
Why on earth would you worship a being that is hateful (i.e. wrathful), seeks vengence and destruction on its children, punishes in a way that makes the nazi human furnaces seem like a day in the park, and condemns its own creations for sexual identity? Is that your idea of morality?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 12th, 2007 at 9:31 am
70 virgins
That would mean the Islamic god condemns 70 female souls to eternal oppression for the whims of 1 male soul. But the Christian god is no less sexist. He made women second class citizens, too, and thus justified the beatings and mistreatment of women over the centuries.
You have such a nice god, Tim.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 12th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I’m not sure if you’re twisting my point for ghe sake of debate, or misunderstood it. So, I’ll clarify: I was not using the twin paradox to comment on design vs. randomness. I was using it to refute your argument that because something seems “astronomically” complex does not mean it is not true. The explanations of our world that agree with emperical observation turned out to be highly complex and the simple answers religion offers have never held up where science has uncovered the universe’s underpinnings. The big answers to the big questions will undoubtedly be complex and not explained by stolen ribs or eating apples.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 12th, 2007 at 11:02 am
My post got chopped. I’m repeating it so it is complete.
“Anyway, I’m talking about the law of probablity, and the use of the evidence around us. QM,relativity, and the twin paradox in no way weaken the idea that the universe was created by a supreme being.”
I’m not sure if you’re twisting my point for the sake of debate, or misunderstood it. So, I’ll clarify: I was not using the twin paradox to comment on design vs. randomness. I was using it to refute your argument that because something seems “astronomically” complex does not mean it is not true. The explanations of our world that agree with emperical observation turned out to be highly complex and the simple answers religion offers have never held up where science has uncovered the universe’s underpinnings. The big answers to the big questions will undoubtedly be complex and not explained by stolen ribs or eating apples.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
“I guess I am stupid.”
I would never say that. I have no way of gauging either your education or intellect. I have never suggested that the religious lack intelligence. (Although, I did claim this about Wayne Dyer, because there are so many statements he made to back it.)
However, if you buy into the old testament god, worship him, I can only believe you do it to save your own skin (i.e. god-fearing) and that you have to be at least somewhat gullible to fall into that trap. And, honestly, I cannot understand how you would sleep at night after praying to a being that you believe will in turn fry a majority of humanity for eternity. You may claim that is god’s decision and not yours, but you’re going along with it nonetheless. I defy you to look into the eyes of a practicing Muslim and say, “I pray to my god that you will be punished in the most horrific way imaginable.” Is that what you wish for him?
My remark about the religious not grasping relativity and complex topics was a comment on the institution of religion. I was saying it relies so heavily and, moreover, unrelentingly on simple unproven answers that it had in no way the means in which to uncover the workings of our complex world. It abhors skepticism and in kills skeptics outright rather than make a virtue out of questioning authority. The church is amazingly defensive and will not admit mistakes. And as an institution will circle the wagons and protect its own pedophiles from the law because it simply cannot admit its wrong when it is clearly wrong.
The complexities of science was simply nowhere near its grasp. The religious continue to believe that the world is 6,000 years old (because a monk was really bad at math) and cannot let it go.
You cannot say the same about the institute of science. The ones attacking it as unrelentless are the ones actually seeking validation from it. They want science to say their mythology is true. So, their attack is completely from another perspective. Science does admit mistakes but–and this is the reason why it is trustworthy–is careful. It says that one opinion makes something so. That is critical to any trustworthiness. This is what infuriates so many self-proclaimed “lone Einsteins.” When they can’t get the validation of science they want, they say it is science that is wrong.
If every philosophy had the validation of scientific methods, none would attack it.
I may think you appear gullible and unquestioning, but not stupid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 12th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Correction: It says that one opinion does not make something so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 12th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
“O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
Eva on behalf of Mark Twain
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 12th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Whoooooaa, Johnny! Slow down a bit here. You touched on quite a few different things that I would like to discuss. I’ll try to answer one post at a time.
I don’t know what other thought could rationally be entertained other than to say it came from nothing. I mean, seriously, how can something come from nothing? NOTHING?? I understand science doesn’t have much of an answer here, and that’s what gives me pause about the line of thought that follows concerning evolution. Is it really so irrational to believe that the universe was created rather than just came from nothing(or whatever it was that science can never identify)? At this point in the lifespan of the universe it would at least seem as credible as anything else.
I believe that at one point, somehow, someway, a snake communicated(or talked) with a woman. You believe this to be utterly ridiculous based on the fact that snakes don’t talk. Yet you would have no problem at all asserting that snakes, among other animals somehow developed from single celled organisms, transformed from species to species, developed two distinct sexes simultaneously, and began talking, creating languages, writing symphonies, etc. etc.
You really should drop this thing about the talking snake. And besides, and I know this won’t help any, but the Bible implies that is was a deceiving spirit that did the talking within the snake.
I don’t believe in God because I’m on some wearied soul journey of significance. I believe it because among the list of explanations, I think it makes the most sense. It’s the most probable.
Whether or not God is indifferent, wrathful, or contains a chewy gooey core of sunshine and rainbows makes no difference to the idea that he exists or not. All I’m trying to assert here is that I believe he does, and I believe it is not foolish of me to do so. Why I chose to worship the God that is revealed in the Christian scriptures is another argument.
I’m not Muslim, so someone else will have to speak on the subject of the 70 virgins. But your idea of the Christian God is quite incorrect. The Bible teaches that men and women are in complimentary roles with one another, not that one sex is better than the other. Men are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church and to honor and cherish them. This teaching is explicit to husbands and wives, but extends in a more general sense to all women. Throughout the peoples of the Scriptures, women were not always treated so well, but this is not because God regarded them as second class citizens. Jesus taught that we should love women as sisters and mothers, and Paul said our wives as our own bodies. And yes, thank you, I believe he is nice too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 12th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Two points. Evolution does not merely seem astronomically complex and unlikely, but it without doubt, IS. If I was to tell you that I picked the correct number out of one quintillion numbers, you would be less likely to believe me than if I said I picked out of four. You may be even less likely to believe me if I told you I did it by accident. Now that wouldn’t make it any less true if, in fact, it was, but probably a lot more foolish of you to believe me given the odds. I’m simply saying that given the odds, creation maybe isn’t such a wacky alternative. Secondly, it makes sense that a complex being created a complex universe. It does not, however, make sense that a dull, lifeless, utterly simple nothingness (or whatever science would call it) created such breathtaking complexity. And complexity with beauty mind you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 12th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Given my worldview that God created the universe, it wouldn’t be in the least bit gullible for me to be God-fearing. It would be gullible if my worldview was incorrect, but you must remember what I am presupposing in order for anything I say to make sense.
I pray to a God who ( based upon the testimony of Scripture now), is holy beyond what we could conceive of in our present state, hates injustice, and is patient with those that hate him without cause to such an extent that he is accused of being slack in defending his own honor. The thought of God punishing people is only abhorrible if you believe that they don’t deserve it, which I do. And for the record, I deserve it too. Very much so.
I would never, never, neeeeeever wish that anyone would fall under the wrath of God, but it is not my decision. I do however pray frequently that he would have mercy on the undeserving. And this of course includes myself.
Saying that God created the universe is not a simple answer. It’s an answer that explodes into a million more questions and demands answers as you are doing right now.
I don’t have the slightest problem with skepticism. I think it’s necessary and productive in the search for truth. No one should believe in something without any good solid reason. I think you’re making a very big generalization here about the Christian community. It’s unfortunate, but there are too many Christians that have tried to engage intelligent people such as yourself without any good ideas as to why they believe what they believe.
I am not catholic and the whole pedophile thing is disgusting and tragic. Anyone defending it or trying to sweep it under the rug is acting in contradiction to the faith they supposedly possess. The Bible speaks about exposing, and doing away with wickedness. This again is another generalization you are making. There are millions and millions of Christians out there. Please don’t lump us all together. Not all Christians believe the world is 6000 years old, that Jesus will Rapture the church as in the ridiculous Left Behind series, or that people can be “slain the spirit” or whatever craziness has overtaken a certain movement within our modern day evangelligoop.
Lastly, just because someone wears a lab coat and works with scientifiky stuff like numbers and plastic tubes doesn’t mean they are agenda free, completely honest, unable to be swayed by personal opinions, ideas, peer pressure, always willing to say that they were wrong, and