View Full Version : Scarcity and lack is a myth
Without getting into a diatribe, I've been involved with many spiritual pursuits and they all have demonstrated and shown how we live in a friendly and abundant universe.
This is an excellent example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE8b02EdZvw
That's a clever project but to extrapolate from there that the universe is anything but indifferent to the plight of a given individual is HUGE. The universe doesn't care if he has a paper clip or a house or if people are inspired by his example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBfLDXOXpME
That's a clever project but to extrapolate from there that the universe is anything but indifferent to the plight of a given individual is HUGE. The universe doesn't care if he has a paper clip or a house or if people are inspired by his example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBfLDXOXpME
I stand corrected. If you believe the universe doesn't care that will be your experience, if you do it will be. It's kind of like that line of Henry Ford: "If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right."
Additionally, I've witnessed a large group of individuals without any money, checks or credit create a massive feast in less than three hours. What they all had in common was that it could be done.
This has only really begun to dawn on me of late. It has blown me away to the point where I can actually see it now, the only scarcity there is is the scarcity one believes in.
So, those starving children just believe too much in famine and all they need to do is change their minds, realize that scarcity and lack are merely myths and that the universe is friendly and abundant and they will be able to create a feast in "less than three hours?"
I need about a kilogram of astatine-211 for some experiments I'd like to do. Actually, I could use about a kilogram a day, since it tends to wander off.
Positive thoughts!
ApatheticNoMore
4-20-11, 1:52am
LOL :)
There's different theories on whether the world really contains enough for everyone (no because we're relying on non-renewables, yes because if we learned to be non-wasteful a good standard of living is possible for everyone with the renewable resources that exist) but it's certainly not actually available to those dying of famine.
Scarcity and abundance are certainly a struggle for even an individual in the 1st world. How much should one expect out of life? What is wishful thinking and what's realistic? I don't know. I certainly don't believe faith alone will pay the bills though :)
It's interesting to imagine if there was a single person on the opposite side of all those trades who trades a house down to a paperclip! :D No, I don't think bartering is zero sum but ...
I need about a kilogram of astatine-211 for some experiments I'd like to do. Actually, I could use about a kilogram a day, since it tends to wander off.
Positive thoughts!
LOL! I'm currently tapping the abundant universe such that I expect Richard Branson to call soon and comp a flight for me on Virgin Galactic.
Unfortunatly I see a lot of that thinking in the basis for our current economic crisis. I don;t think we need to go back to depression era thinking in all ways (maybe the budgets) but I dothink that some people misunderstood the abundant thinking idea to create housing bubbles and economies built more on ideas than solid footing. It is rough theory right now but it is one I am seriously considering. Now being content where you are at and appreciating that you have enough even with much less than society says you need I totally support and think is sustanable and based on a balance of reality and abundance. If that makes any sense.
So, those starving children just believe too much in famine and all they need to do is change their minds, realize that scarcity and lack are merely myths and that the universe is friendly and abundant and they will be able to create a feast in "less than three hours?"
I stand corrected again. It is individual beliefs AND collective belief.
What is your experience when you believe there are some unknown children starving somewhere in the world? Poverty? Poverty as in "nothing I can do"? A poverty or lack of power against injustice? Do you starve for distraction from it?
Is your knowledge of starving children complete or lacking? Or is it just images and words always from people you don't know who got it from other people you don't know etc.?
Is your experience that somebody needs to do something and they're not?
Do you experience spiritual poverty?
My experience is that if "I spot it, I got it".
Makes sense to me Zoe. What's amazing about the paperclip video is human ingenuity and perseverance - not a friendly and abundant universe.
Xmac, we aren't going to agree on this. I find the notion that it all comes down to beliefs to be ignorant, cruel and full of hubris. It just doesn't square with reality.
ApatheticNoMore
4-20-11, 1:42pm
If the point is just that it's the actions of humanity that collectively create the situation of famine, that's correct. Yes (wars, economic policies, social policies, whatever). But those individuals who are starving are quite helpless against it.
Xmac, we aren't going to agree on this. I find the notion that it all comes down to beliefs to be ignorant, cruel and full of hubris. It just doesn't square with reality.
We certainly don't need to agree. I often quoted this for good reason: 'it is the mark of intelligence to be able to entertain any idea without necessarily espousing it'.
As for reality, there is another bit I like to borrow from: If four people are waiting for a bus and it's apparently late, all four will experience different reactions to the same "reality". One may be relieved because he's going somewhere he believes he doesn't want to go, another may get angry, another may be concerned for the bus driver and/or all the people on it and the last may not even notice it's late. Same neutral event, different stories thus realities as to what is happening.
On a deeper level, the bus hasn't come...is that true? The intention in having buses is to get somewhere, that is its value. I've come to see that things don't happen to us they happen for us and that every "problem" is an opportunity. In this case the opportunity for the angry man is to see where he is late, inconsiderate or disappoints others. In seeing this he uses his real eyes because he will real-ize peace (as long as he doesn't attach to the belief "I'm bad for being angry"). He'll allow everything to be as it is because 'when one understands, everything is as it is and when one doesn't understand, everything is as it is. His bus just came.
If he doesn't realize what's going on he is ignoring it. Why? Could be that he choosing the surrogates of peace: superiority, ego, etc.
Do you think that if one has peace, one is cruel and does nothing for others?
Do you have a belief that if one expresses uncommon sense it is ignorance?
Does another person's expressed experience constitute hubris?
Saying "I am at peace with the world," is waaaaay different than saying, "The world is a peaceful place." What happens when the parent can't bring the food because the aid trucks have been hijaked by rebels? Which bus is that and what lesson is the starving child supposed to be learning and surrendering too? Why does famine happen "for" these people and not to them? Do they deserve it? Have they willed it into being? Are these things I don't need to figure into my world view because they aren't in my backyard? Is there no argument for empathy or sympathy?
To answer your questions...
"Do you think that if one has peace, one is cruel and does nothing for others?"
Peace attained through self-delusion that mistakes good fortune for some sort of mystical attunement to a kind universe is horribly cruel. It reduces the suffering of the world to an Oprah outtake of a Depak Chopra interview and sickens me.
"Do you have a belief that if one expresses uncommon sense it is ignorance?"
I don't have a belief about this. I know that many people are so completly out of touch and unaware of the playground we have in develooped nations and how immensly different that is compared to the majority of humans on this planet. And, I know that many people decide, through this ignorance, to fancy themselves as somehow nurtured by an indifferent universe.
"Does another person's expressed experience constitute hubris?"
Immaturity at best. My son, 13, told me recently, that if we had a zip line in the backyard he'd always be happy. Playing with ideological "toys" may be fun for awhile but generalizing them as you have makes about as much sense as my son's assertion that he'd always be happy if we had a zip line in the backyard. The world is not peaceful because you are. The universe is not friendly because you are satisfied with your lot. It doesn't work that way.
'it is the mark of intelligence to be able to entertain any idea without necessarily espousing it'.
Oh, and I'd quibble with this but Tim does it so much better... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg&playnext=1&list=PL3BC5F16672867C56
Saying "I am at peace with the world," is waaaaay different than saying, "The world is a peaceful place."
You have these in quotes. Where did I say the former?
As for the latter, true, I insinuated it. From my perspective there is no fundamental Reality or Truth that we all see and agree upon, there are only instances in which we think we agree and experience the same thing until the paradigm shift comes along and blows it away; whether it be an individual shift or a near collective one like discovering that the earth isn't necessarily flat. I say "near" collective because there may be someone who still believes it.
In the movie Pulp Fiction, Samuel L Jackson's character has a spiritual awakening of sorts and decides to leave the life of gangster. John Travolta's character is disgusted because the event which leads to this seems like a fluke to him. Jackson's character point's out that even though it may not have been a miracle according to Hoyle, what is significant is that he felt the touch of God.
The reason I bring this up is that there are moments of insight that another person may see as wishful or deluded thinking and when it amounts to demonstrable differences in the experiencer himself the outward appearance or what is regarded as Truth is actually what is insignificant.
What happens when the parent can't bring the food because the aid trucks have been hijaked by rebels?
I don't know. But if we're discussing hypothetical situations (and even if we're not) there are many possibilities.
...what lesson is the starving child supposed to be learning and surrendering too?
The bus example was not posted to suggest what a starving child should or shouldn't do, it was submitted as an alternative way to relate to the reality you perceive.
Why does famine happen "for" these people and not to them?
Do they deserve it? Have they willed it into being? Are these things I don't need to figure into my world view because they aren't in my backyard? Is there no argument for empathy or sympathy?
By making this about the suffering of others that are far away you decide to focus on those you'll be least effective in helping and you ignore the individuals that you can help the most right now: you and those around you. The prayer, let there be peace on Earth and let it begin with me, as I see it, is not counseling to fix the external world. The peace found within is that which radiates outward most vividly and easily, like waves from a drop of water.
My experience is that most vigorous advocates for the poor and suppressed are frequently impudent, or at most have only temporary successes, until they drop their baggage of how the world is supposed to look and fully accept how it is. Sympathy and empathy are just self indulgent emotions. Compassion, on the other hand, is realization in action.
To answer your questions...
"Do you think that if one has peace, one is cruel and does nothing for others?"
Peace attained through self-delusion...
Was my question regarding one who has peace or peace attained through self-delusion (which isn't peaceful at all)?
...that mistakes good fortune for some sort of mystical attunement to a kind universe is horribly cruel.
This sounds perilously close to a belief that belief changes reality. If someone or something is cruel doesn't there have to be an entity receiving cruelty?
"Does another person's expressed experience constitute hubris?"
Immaturity at best. My son, 13, told me recently, that if we had a zip line in the backyard he'd always be happy. Playing with ideological "toys"
I don't regard my experience as ideology and I certainly see how it could be construed as such.
may be fun for awhile but generalizing them as you have makes about as much sense as my son's assertion that he'd always be happy if we had a zip line in the backyard.
I rarely quote the Bible and I think this is an exceptional occasion that is fitting, Jesus said:
"Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
Making common sense is fine unless you want to find the truth. For example, an eye for an eye was once considered, and often is still considered, sensible. However it is completely ineffective in the pursuit of peace (inner and outer) and/or truth.
The world is not peaceful because you are. The universe is not friendly because you are satisfied with your lot. It doesn't work that way.
Again, I'm glad you find me peaceful. That would not be your experience if you cut me off in traffic, I assure you. I'm Satisfied? Well it comes and goes.
Oh, and I'd quibble with this but Tim does it so much better... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg&playnext=1&list=PL3BC5F16672867C56
The difference between the skeptic and the cynic is that the skeptic is curious and interested in hearing more, the cynic isn't.
As for Tim et al, anyone who proclaims to be interested in the truth will not be swayed away from it when it sounds outrageous. The musical invitation is disingenuous in its tone, it's closer to daring someone to break through his already made up mind; a dukes up/fingers crossed kind of openness. There are reasonable and rational reasons as to why there are few "reputable" studies of phenomenon such as psychic ability. For the truly intellectually courageous, I'd recommend Dean Radin's book, Entangled Minds and any book by Rupert Sheldrake.
Otherwise, and I say this as a former cynic, enjoy the bleak outlook -really I did for a while.
There are reasonable and rational reasons as to why there are few "reputable" studies of phenomenon such as psychic ability.
And still the $1 million Randi Prize has gone unclaimed since 1964. You'd think someone would have managed it by now.
Scarcity and lack are concepts. Hunger, cold, ill health, physical threats, are all physical experiences. The meaning we each assign to them varies widely. I have never been in any of these physical states for more than a few hours. I also cannot judge how anyone else would assign meaning to them.
You know, I see abundance as a mindset, not necessarily as a definition of "stuff".
I know very poor people (in many parts of the world) who are content and happy -- they feel that their lives are abundant. By many standards (particularly US, middle class, climbing standards), I live in a state of poverty or lack. Yet, I have everything I need and most things that I want (I still also have goals, which I work diligently to attain). I keep a positive mindset (hopefullness) and seek opportunities for right action to attain my goals. I seriously live a life that is full of great excitement and joy.
I am grateful for my lifestyle -- I have a wonderful family, good friends, and live in a beautiful city in a stable country. We have money in the bank, a thriving primary business (sustaining), second and third part-time thriving businesses (all three businesses are work that we love!), a warm, comfortable and clean home, all of the food we need. We have items for pleasure (eg, computer to chat, watch movies on). We have the opportunity to travel. And truly, there is minimal stress. It's a really nice, fulfilling, and abundant life.
And that **** is real. ;D
And still the $1 million Randi Prize has gone unclaimed since 1964. You'd think someone would have managed it by now.
This is an excerpt from an article called The Myth Of The Million Dollar Challenge. As I said, a dukes up/fingers crossed kind of openness:
Researchers Step Up to the Plate
As a consequence, you might well say "no wonder no serious researcher has applied for the Challenge." Interestingly, this is not the case. Dr Dick Bierman, who has a PhD in physics, informed me that he did in fact approach James Randi about the Million Dollar Challenge in late 1998. Bierman reported a success in replicating the presentiment experiments of Dr Dean Radin (where human reactions seem to occur marginally before an event occurs), and was subsequently asked by Stanley Klein of the University of California why, if his results for psi effects were positive and replicable, he didn't respond to Randi's challenge. Bierman replied that he would rather invest his time in good scientific research, rather than convincing skeptics in a one-off test. However, after further discussion, he decided that he may be able to combine the two:
After some exchange of ideas I was brought into contact with Randi. Randi sounded sincerely interested and I worked out a proposal for an interesting experiment that would last about a year. Experimental effects in this type of research are small and require a lot of measurements to reach the required statistical significance (I think Randi wanted a p-value of 0.000001).
Note that he didn't insist on showing the effect on stage. Rather I proposed to do a kind of precognition (actually presentiment) experiment on-line over Internet where he or some other independent skeptic could generate the targets once the responses were communicated over the Internet (all this would be done automatically on a computer under his control within a second). This would prevent cheating from the experimenter's side but we still had to work out how to prevent cheating from the Randi-side.
At that point Randi mentioned that before proceeding he had to submit this preliminary proposal to his scientific board or committee. And basically that was the end of it. I have no idea where the process was obstructed but I must confess that I was glad that I could devote myself purely to science rather than having to deal with the skeptics and the associated media hypes.
As I said, a dukes up/fingers crossed kind of openness:
The phrase I would use is that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Would you like to see my invisible, floating dragon... it's in my garage.
The process for applying for the Randi Prize is well documented, and should come as no surprise to the applicant, and hundreds have gone through the process...
It's not a viable option for them to make that money available because they'd have to give up a small fortune and a big fortune: the big fortune being their identity and if they're like most people they're more attached to that than the money.
It's not a viable option for them to make that money available because they'd have to give up a small fortune and a big fortune: the big fortune being their identity and if they're like most people they're more attached to that than the money.
Such lies. I've met Randi personally. I've contributed cash to the prize money. You are attributing poor motivations and dishonesty where there is none.
This whole discussion kind of bothers me, because it represents the tenor of conversation on almost every spirituality discussion board I've ever seen. I stopped posting on Belief.net because of it. The irony just kind of blows my mind.
We all have beliefs, some can be backed with hard evidence, others can be backed with evidence that may be inexplicable but may still be real, and other beliefs have no evidence at all. We are not on these boards to hit each other over the head with our beliefs (with underlying condescension), but to share experiences in our spiritual lives in much the same way we share our simple life experiences.
I personally believe in the blind men and elephant parable--we in our lives are only privy to touching the toenail of the elephant and I find it hard to presume we know "reality" because of our limited experience. But beyond that, I have no clue--although I am open to certain experiences, such as ability to transmit thought--mainly because of my own personal experience with a couple of people in my life.
Getting to the scarcity and lack story, as others have said, it's not an argument about who has what--it's a statement about the approach to it. Anne Frank wrote beautifully about the beauty of the sky that she could see only through a small skylight in her annex prison.
Last weekend, the waiter took a few minutes to get to our restaurant table. My DH went to the manager to complain. This week he went to the ER and spent a long time waiting for someone to attend to him. He wound up ripping off his monitors, etc. and threatening to walk out rather than staying as recommended. Then he said to me, "Why does this stuff always happen to ME?" I really wanted to tell him that "this stuff" happens to everyone, but other people might be able to enjoy the restaurant even if the waiter is 15 minutes late, and even if you spend a day hanging around in the ER. But I didn't bother saying that--he wouldn't get it. He thinks people like that are mindless sheep, but he's the one living with the anger and hostility.
The empirical folks among us do get frustrated from time to time. I am personally ready to change my ideas in the face of evidence. It's those who continue to puff up delusional beliefs about the world we live in that get under my skin sometimes. And, I like to argue about this stuff... sometimes.
ApatheticNoMore
4-30-11, 12:44am
Last weekend, the waiter took a few minutes to get to our restaurant table. My DH went to the manager to complain. This week he went to the ER and spent a long time waiting for someone to attend to him. He wound up ripping off his monitors, etc. and threatening to walk out rather than staying as recommended. Then he said to me, "Why does this stuff always happen to ME?" I really wanted to tell him that "this stuff" happens to everyone, but other people might be able to enjoy the restaurant even if the waiter is 15 minutes late, and even if you spend a day hanging around in the ER. But I didn't bother saying that--he wouldn't get it. He thinks people like that are mindless sheep, but he's the one living with the anger and hostility.
You DH is what I would call 'a type'. :laff: The "why does it always happen to me" type I guess. It is probably one of the games talked about by Eric Berne.
But the fact that some people will complain about a waiter being late and see it as a personal offense can coexist in the same universe with the fact that some people really do have extraordinary sequences of real tragedies through little fault of their own.
Getting to the scarcity and lack story, as others have said, it's not an argument about who has what--it's a statement about the approach to it. Anne Frank wrote beautifully about the beauty of the sky that she could see only through a small skylight in her annex prison.
You can look at what you have as scarcity or abundance (yea look at it is as abundance, you american, it would only take 5 planets for everyone to live this way ;)). And that's the present. But the present isn't always what vexes: it's the future that vexes. The unknown. And how is one to deal with that unknown, expecting scarcity or abundance?
Such lies. I've met Randi personally. I've contributed cash to the prize money. You are attributing poor motivations and dishonesty where there is none.
Just because you've met him doesn't mean you know him or his motivations. I will however concede that you're right, I don't know his motivations; I don't even know his actions.
My experience, however, is that his alleged actions (or inactions as the case my be) are consistent with other cynics. Incidentally, I don't consider it a crime or dishonest to be attached to one's identity/beliefs. I frequently am.
Randi isn't a cynic. But welcome to your own reality. This little button here will adjust mine. Ta ta.
I liked Randi when I met him many years ago.
My only problem with strict empirical objectivism is this: it forgets about the other part of life -- subjective experience.
Science, for example, cannot prove or predict the emotional reaction to things -- the waiter being late does not empirically result in people being annoyed. That is a personal, irrational, subjective experience. There are also experiences of great beauty.
In order to think positively, one needn't be thinking about a future or involved in wishful thinking. When I entered into the proposition of starting my business, I hoped and planned on succeeding. Of course, anything can happen, but we work very hard and we try to get everything going so that our business will succeed. And it is succeeding. This is done not because of magical thinking, or even because of God or whatever else.
It was intentionality, planning, and work. And that was bolstered by positivity and hopefulness and our belief in ourselves that we *could succeed.*
Of course, without the work to back it up, or make it happen, no amount of positivity was going to create the successful business. It does require *action*.
But, perception *is* part of the equation of how we create our realities. By this, I do not mean "I created this car from thin air!" but rather "this waiter is late and that shouldn't be!" vs "it's nice to relax at the table and talk without the waiter pressuring us." Same "reality" but different perceptions thereof, and different emotional outcomes, too. One gets angry, the other gets happy.
It's not a character flaw to be an optimist, and I don't think it's a false belief either. I do see the world as abundant, rather than scarce, but I also have a different sense of what that abundance means. "The Secret" made me laugh with it's focus on materialism -- I don't want that mansion, car, boat, elephant, bike, or whatever. I don't care about things. But I do want a good, happy life. And I set out to do that. And I'm optimistic that I can create it (and I do create it) and that I will be able to continue to.
And yes, even in light of things like -- fear, anguish, frustration, loss and grief, etc. I am infinitely blessed to not have to deal with famine, situations like christ church's earth quake, war, etc etc etc. And, I do not think those people are flawed based on their context (nor creators of it), and many of them are -- strikingly -- optimistic and hopeful in their futures. Hopeful that the time will end, that they will pull through, that there will be better days in their future. Nothing wrong with hope.
If you believe there are no mysteries and the only magic in the world is fake and people are all either cunning tricksters or gullible marks and money confers legitimacy, then that’s the world you get. Talk about attraction.
That's not the world I live in. I'm with JBS Haldane, who famously asserted "I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
I used to confuse cynicism with skepticism. I love life, the world. I'm more amazed now as a skeptic... I would love for esp or telekinesis or the law of attraction to be confirm in well designed double blind studies... it's just not happening. Some of you are mistaking the fact that you can't argue if red or blue is the "best" color with willful ignorance of the struggle and strife in life. I just refuse to put those blinders on anymore. It's not that I can't see the good stuff... it's that I refuse to live in fantasy world while people suffer and sell snake oil. I'm calling them out on that stuff. And, yes, I think it was very cruel of me, in the past, when I was a new agey doofus to espouse things that when boiled down are all about blaming victims or the just world fallacy.
ApatheticNoMore
4-30-11, 1:35pm
I would love for esp or telekinesis or the law of attraction to be confirm in well designed double blind studies...
I don't know, maybe the others, but personally I'm rather glad the law of attraction isn't true :) So it offers seemingly more control over life, but at what a price in having to censor your thoughts etc.!
Here's an example: they'll be chaos over at my birth family and I'll think things like "I'll be one of those people whose family murders each other". Do I really want such things? Well at least people will believe me when I say I come from really messed up family ;) And also it seems like it might have some chance of happening sometimes :( But I probably just worry too much. But do I REALLY want such things? Not really (in fact my actions are to call 911 when I think things are getting that bad - I'm often not there) to try to prevent such things from happening. Then I remember they are ONLY thoughts and a Freud could analyze them for motive, but they don't by themselves create any reality.
Actually not just for that situation but many many times when I've envisioned some natural disaster catastrophe with great vividness, and it almost seems like my thoughts could make it happen, it is deeply soothing to remind myself: they are only thoughts, they come and go, sometimes they stay too long, BUT they don't create reality in that sense.
Good point about that double edged sword of thoughts creating reality. Only if it comes with a filter that blocks out all the harsh thinking.
The phrase I would use is that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Would you like to see my invisible, floating dragon... it's in my garage.
Well, Galileo had such evidence but that didn't help much because human nature, being as it was (and still is) in the form of church cynics will not allow truth when it shifts the wrong paradigms or shifts it too much. I see the same resistance to truth today in medicine, biology, physics, law, education, religion and psychology...and I gotta say I love it.
Toeing the party line is the way to go if you want funding, but it rarely leads to earth-shaking discoveries. Fortunately, there are always a few brave souls like Galileo and Ignaz Semmelweis who risk reputation and life itself to push beyond "what everybody knows."
I used to confuse cynicism with skepticism. I love life, the world. I'm more amazed now as a skeptic...
Well, have I got a watch for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew&feature=related
This video also answers the Randi prize question.
The stupidity hypothesis (this one is short):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9aNl0J8-lo&feature=related
The stupidity hypothesis (this one is short):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9aNl0J8-lo&feature=related
I like this--I like his quote that some people believe things that science poo-poos because of their own experience (my paraphrase).
I'm going to tell you about my experience. Xmac, you may well say, "See! I told you so" and mattj, you may well say, "Oh, that was just a coincidence" or "You're exaggerating." But, I just want to say that I don't exaggerate--it's not in my nature, and what's more, I wrote this occurrence in my journal at the time, so that I would have an accurate record, not inflated or rendered subjective by time.
I have one son that I seem to have a particular connection with. Here are the three perhaps telepathic experiences we shared:
There was a deck of cards on a table. He put his finger on the top card, without looking at it. He said, "guess what card this is." I said, "3 of Hearts" He picked it up and said, "wrong. OK, what card is THIS one?" (He didn't tell me what the first card actually was. And he put his finger on the next card, without looking at it. I said, "9 of Clubs" He said, "No, that was the LAST card!"
I had been to a church in the morning--a Catholic church my kids never went to, because they're Protestant. My daughter and I were looking at the bulletin at home, when my son walked in the room. My daughter said, "Guess how much the church collected last week?" On his way through the room, he said in his teen-aged don't-bother-me voice, "I don't know, $20,660." It was $20,616. Now, my son would have no idea whether this church collects $2 a week or 2 million--he had no frame of reference for this guess.
So, I was starting to feel like we really had some kind of mental connection, so a couple of days later, I said, "Let's play a game. I'll go in the other room and look at a picture and you tell me what I'm looking at." As I said, he was a skeptical teenager, with no time for Mom's games, but he said, "oh, alright." I went in another room where there were a stack of random magazines and picked a picture. "What am I looking at?" I yelled. Again, impatient, he answered, "I don't know. This is stupid." "Oh, come on, just say something" I yelled back. He said, "Oh, I don't know, a circus, or a ringmaster or something." It wasn't a circus, or a ringmaster. But it was a picture of a tall model with her arms outstretched--and behind her were two large elephants, butt to butt.
You can say that was totally coincidental, or you can say, that just maybe my son and I have some level of psychic connection.
Just sayin'.
Catherine, thank you for your post. This discussion is starting to remind me of that time my brother told my Mom she was stupid for not knowing there was beer at the high school parties he was going to. Thankfully, my Mom was smart enought to know that he meant ignorant. She had grown up in a much more conservative manner and just didn't know.
I know a lot of my venom on his subject comes from the manner in which it filtered through me. For decades I'd wake up in the middle of the night and aliens were just finishing their experiments on me or demons were trying to steal my soul. I lost sleep and became somewhat psychotic but still functional because of this. I lost a marriage. Then I learned about hypnagogia, night terrors, sleep paralysis, false awakening and better ways to medicate these things.
I used to trance channel disembodied entities. I did this until I went to a workshop on the afterlife and was surrounded by desperate family members of people who had died. They were hanging on to hope and the other "special" people were fanning the flames of their false hope and lengthening their pain by convincing them they were in touch with their dead loved ones. This is when I learned of the pain and cruelty associated with these practices.
I have been and still am fascinated by "coincidences" or synchronicty but I remind myself that the law of large numbers informs me that it'd be weirder if this stuff didn't happen.
I know this stuff feels so real and so important and cool and I know the deep want for it to be true (like Fox Mulder on X-Files... "I want to believe"). I'm still shedding my superstitions about it but the glimpses I'm getting of the empirical world...
Thanks for sharing your filter, mattj. I agree completely that all too often we hear just what we want to hear, and that sometimes "reality" is nothing more than faulty brain wiring and firing, as you mentioned with regard to your own experiences.
As a market researcher, I LOVE collecting information and trying to make sense of it. As a qualitative market researcher, I often see my clients listening to one quote, and saying, "See! People really love our product!" when in fact, maybe one person said that and attached a lot of "buts" to it. I always have work at showing them the reality, which may be different from what they want to hear.
Also, knowing that I am supposed to be a blank slate but may have my own hidden filters and prejudices and preferences, I am VERY vigilant about combing interview transcripts to be sure I'm not projecting my own stuff on my research findings. So, as it turns out, you and I are both empiricists...
But in my "old" age I know that we are just specks of intelligence in this Universe, and the greatest frustration my curious mind has is knowing that I will never know for sure the answer to 1/100th of the mysteries that are out there. I am humbled by this truth, and my mental and spiritual door is wide open so that the truth can come in, rather than be shut out by my own faulty perceptions.
mattj,
Both of my last posts were from the empirical world. One experiment was repeated thousands of times including participation by two proclaimed skeptics and even though they were reluctant to draw the same conclusions from the data, the results were the same: There was a significant positive result of 7% above chance.
I think it was Dean Radin that pointed out that this science is still in its infancy, the way it was when electricity was just beginning to be harnessed. And because it is more subtle, difficult to measure, and subject to prejudice, its progress moves more slowly.
Dean Radin notes how it is essential that those conducting the experiments have to be extremely vigilant and skeptical themselves so as to insure that the outcomes of the experiments are impeccable; that they must meet a standard that is at least as high as an experiment on a mainstream subject or they open themselves to even more ridicule.
As for cruelty and false hope associated with psychics, what cruelty? What false hope?
If they convinced them, as you said, did that not give them comfort? Maybe you see it as cruel because you don't believe it. As far as hope goes, what were they hoping for that wasn't going to happen?
mattj,
...the results were the same: There was a significant positive result of 7% above chance.
This is often better than the multi-center double-blind studies in clinical trials to support drug efficacy: a typical result is the PLACEBO might show 20% reduction in a certain endpoint, and the FDA has approved lots of drugs that show they are just 5% more efficacious than placebo. Check out the clinical trial data of the most prescribed drugs--you'll find this to be true.
And ya gotta love the placebo effect--which is nothing more than mind over matter.
But in my "old" age I know that we are just specks of intelligence in this Universe, and the greatest frustration my curious mind has is knowing that I will never know for sure the answer to 1/100th of the mysteries that are out there. I am humbled by this truth, and my mental and spiritual door is wide open so that the truth can come in, rather than be shut out by my own faulty perceptions.
First, I loved your post. I always tell my wife that if people like looking at glittery pictures of pink unicorns to give themselves some comfort... I mean, I get that. It's when folks, like the OP did here overgeneralize about things, like the infallible power of glittery pink unicorns that bothers me. I'm trying to leave enough space in my brain to learn new things and trying to reduce the amount of dogmatic pink unicorn thinking that my kids will inherit from me.... giving them and others I might be close to some exposure to better critical thinking tools.
Life is a wild ride for sure. And we're all trying the best we can <<< see what I did there in that last sentence, I did something very similar to what Xmac did at the start of this and overgeneralized something that, although untestable, gives me comfort. What I really mean is that most of the times I try to do the best I can given the circumstances and I like to think most other people, even those who are dangerous, are doing the same. It's like a shot of B-vitamins to my compassion. It doesn't mean it's right. It's kind of like realizing I really prefer eating apples.
I read awhile ago about memes, replicating "chunks" of material spread by people. There is a concept called an innoculating meme, that, as I recall, has been used to defend more benign religious ideas. The idea is that if you can get people to believe "this" innocuous bit here they will be less suseptible to "this" dangerous stuff over here.
I think it's fair to say that one might have a particularly optimistic outlook, or pessimistic one, and that neither is reality. or both are.
ApatheticNoMore
5-5-11, 4:08am
Probably neither are, and we probably have less control over our outlook than we think anyway. Some control? Yes, but it also likely has a genetic component.
Glad you mentioned the original post, mattj:
If everyone on Earth spontaneously realized an abundant world as a result of inner abundance, regardless of what tangible material they possessed, would scarcity and lack exist? If we, the human race, were no longer compelled by, and attached to, material possessions (the source of material poverty) would anyone starve?
I can't even begin to imagine how the answer would be yes unless it was the result of something unrelated to human apathy, greed etc.
If the answer is no, then scarcity and lack are a myth (or just a concept/belief because attachment to things is based on belief).
If we were no longer attached to, and repelled by symbols, words, myth, icons, labels, images, signs etc. (the source of spiritual poverty) would material poverty even be a problem?
I first began this thread with examples of material abundance in which I, as well as the paper clip guy, were not attached to an outcome of getting; just an intention and an openness to the possibility of co-creating something with strangers: consideration of the absurd.
The material manifestation, albeit a necessary element, was merely symbolic for what was a state of mind. For me, the inspiration generated in what could be achieved in a milieu and zeitgeist of scarcity (although not actually materially scarce) was what was significant, not the actual food.
A Biblical scenario comes to mind which I see as an apt metaphor for this discussion. I'm not saying the miracle didn't happen, but for me the story of Jesus feeding thousands with a couple fish and a few loaves of bread is symbolic of spiritual fulfillment/abundance in material scarcity.
In the examples above, the outward appearance or "reality" is of secondary importance compared to the state from which we relate to that reality. This does not deny reality, it places it in its proper context.
Now, I have not suggested, nor would ever suggest, that a starving child deserves to starve because they're doing it to themselves.
Notice how when I say, "scarcity and lack is a myth", the automatic assumption is that I think, or have said, that no one suffers and that if they are suffering, it's their fault; and/or that they are somehow spiritually deficient. This is the replacement of the negation of concepts with new ones; negative ones.
Holocaust survivor Victor Frankl became famous for his realization that he had a choice in how he related to the events which took place in the concentration camp in which he was imprisoned and he was able to teach others of how they can become peaceful in the outward appearance of horror. Buddhist monks were able to sit still and quietly meditate while they burned their own bodies in protest of war.
The examples above demonstrate that when mind is balanced, there is no suffering; when there is no belief there is no ego and ego is all that suffers. The denial of the suffering of others is more suffering ego. Compassion springs effortlessly from the insightful mind because it doesn't have the belief that others suffer because they are inferior or deficient.
All conditions exist in a neutral state until there is a judgment of some kind: an imaginary or symbolic attempt to describe what is inherently infinite.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.