Stephen's blog

The power of engagement

Just had a marvelous chat with a good friend.

Again and again I'm reminded of the power of engaging in conversation with people.

There's something that happens which seems to amplify my creative thinking and insight.

In the past I've focused on being a writer, but the chat with my friend unearthed a heap of new perspectives (both by him and myself, much of it new to both).

Category(s): 

Points to remember

As mentioned in "Let's get clinical" and "for the 100th time", I've noticed a penchant for many people to believe in limiting systems.

Unfortunately, I forget on occasions the same very principles that I espouse.

A recent example was that of a lovely woman who professed to be an astrololger. Instead of my inviting her to consider some examples of  dynamic and fluid potentials available to her, I joked about her beliefs in a condescending manner. Not good.

Category(s): 

Let's get clinical

While at the wonderful Gulgong Folk Festival recently I chatted to many people, and learned about many diverse and interesting world-views. I'm realising that people will accept and actively champion limitations and fixed beliefs because it serves them to do so. Fixed-systems beliefs gives stability and structure to people's lives (a common example being 'astrology'). And this acceptance occurs despite those beliefs stifling, limiting and denying wonderful potentials and possibilities. Chatting to a young woman at the festival who was open to the deeper quantum-possibilities of life got me thinking of the benefits from sharing good, sound belief-system concepts. As a result I'll start setting up "belief clinics" focused on "Joy, Peace, Ease, Love and Laughter" -- we'll be focused on having fun, ease, laughter and 'letting go' limiting, fixed beliefs about the past, the present and the future.

Category(s): 

and your box is ...

Recently at a music festival at which I was helping the organisers, I got chatting with some people (separately), and the contrast between them was stark.

First, I got chatting to a lovely woman who had (has) a deliciously cheeky sense of humour. An example: when passing by a group of young men she was asked "do you have a match?", to which she replied, easy as "what, do I look like a smoker, a girl guide?". The response: stunned silence. She then soothed, explaining she had a spare packet of matches and they could keep them. The reaction was hilarious to watch -- they thought she was the best thing since sliced bread. They couldn't stop thanking her. Impeccable timing, sure to be sure (the festival did have an Irish contingent).

But ... as much as I was attracted to this lovely woman, she ... unfortunately, was an astrologer. "Oh dear", I thought, "this ain't going to end well". We exchanged ideas, beliefs. Apparently the year I was born makes me a goat. Funny that ... I quite enjoy "acting the goat", but I'm not so sure about being a billy. She apparently was a rabbit. Funny that .. we compared palms, mine showing much more evidence of beta-carotene colouration. So here was a goat evidently more keen on carrots than this lovely rabbit. As I said, I fairly quickly concluded our little flirtation wasn't going anywhere substantial.

Category(s): 

The art and discipline of happiness

When chatting with a friend recently we discovered that we had (independently) come to a similar place in our lives — a wonderfully light, free and peaceful place.

We found that we each had arrived at this place by doing something exceedingly simple — we had finally "let go" blaming others, or blaming "out there" or "suffering" blame from others, or suffering or feeling lonely, or ...

Category(s): 

Systems thinking - an oxymoron?

A contributor on LinkedIn had wisdom to write: "A system is. Anything that follows that is either redundant or restrictive."

My response: 

To some extent I agree, but perhaps not for obvious reasons.

I dropped out of system thinking dialogue for the lack of in-depth consideration of natural systems that ... well, are natural and work.

In particular, the role of quantum coherence in organising systems.

As this article explains:

"Molecular biologists "are trained to look at the molecule," Engel said. "We don't usually design systems. We design molecules. The question becomes: Which aspects of this do we strive to recreate? We are very interested in the design principles. How could you design one of these?"

I believe that unless you're talking quantum principles, as applied to systems, you're wasting time (pun not originally intended, but in hindsight, a good one ... in that with quantum coherence there is an immediate "at-once" connectedness to life, that obviously wastes no time whatsoever. Can't get more efficient than that, or more effective and immediate :).

Category(s): 

Commonly coined

Some time ago I coined the term "physioplasticity" to more aptly describe the deeper plastic nature of physical matter and energy.

As was explained in more detail in this (2008) article ("Brains and beliefs"), matter and energy is continually cycling and emerging (unfolding) from a deeper meta-physical level.

As Jane Roberts explained

Category(s): 

The modern superstitions of science and religion

Background

Modern science is still almost entirely based on 17th century concepts that physical movement is perfectly smooth and continuous.

This continuity of movement implies continuity of operation (of the world we experience) which naturally induced the perception that our universe (and our bodies) operated like a clockwork machine. This machine-world view was the impetus for the Industrial Revolution which resulted in many beneficial technologies (aircraft, automobiles, etc).

Around 200 years after Newton developed the calculus (which is based on the assumption of perfect continuity), the continuous-machine model was not able to explain a growing number of puzzling experimental results1 especially those concerning the presumed wave-like behaviour of light.

In the minutia of physical movement, movement is not continuous, nor clockwork in nature, nor predictable, nor certain ...nor physical in nature, but meta-physical.

In 1905 Albert Einstein resolved the mismatch of clockwork theory with actual experiment with his photo-electric effect for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics. Light came in "lumps" or particles of energy, and these particles, what we call "photons", were not continuous.

This "quantum" view of light gave rise to a burst of discoveries2, leading to what is now accepted as being, by far, "the most successful physical theory in history"3 : quantum theory.

Physicists quipped that quantum physics was all about "lumps and jumps" - lumps of light that "jump" from location to location without travelling the intervening space.

As one leading physicist explained, "according to the quantum theory, movement is not4 fundamentally continuous".

However, our sciences are still working on the assumption of clockwork continuity, which works well enough for rockets, rifles and railways.

Medical science, for example, still seeks to find the static machine-parts (genes) responsible for our personal behaviours, despite the evidence for nonlocal, interconnecting fields of quantum potentials that would, if researched, open whole new avenues for healing and wellbeing.

In the minutia of physical movement including when we so much as lift a finger, movement is not continuous, nor clockwork in nature, nor predictable, nor certain ... nor physical in nature, but meta-physical.

Yet our sciences carry on, as if movement was continuous and purely physical. The bulk of modern science is reliant on 17th century assumptions that are incompatible with world's most successful physical theory. The scientific method calls for theories to be discarded or modified when faced with evidence that is unable to be accommodated within the scope of a particular theory. This is how science advances. The geocentric model (Earth as centre of the universe) was ultimately replaced by the heliocentric model (Earth orbiting the Sun) because of the weight of evidence for the heliocentric model.

The intransigence to upgrade science's mechanical-universe model with one that is compatible with the quantum evidence is, like the behaviour of priests in Galileo's time, the hallmark of dogma, superstition and greed. That failure (to accommodate the facts within a congruent world-view) is a travesty of modern science.

In brief:

Standard5 modern science is still almost entirely based on 17th century concepts that physical movement is perfectly smooth and continuous (comprising an infinite-series6 of ever-so-small "infinitesimal" movements).

There are no bodily processes (chemical, electrical or otherwise) that can move anything infinitely ("infinite" literally means without end). Accordingly, physical movement is theoretically impossible when based on standard science's Newtonian (17th century) "assumptions". Given that physical movement is a routine aspect of everyday life, the root assumptions of standard science are clearly and unambiguously wrong.

Instead of applying 17th century thinking to our 21st century world, a new holodynamic world-view that matches the (quantum) evidence is, arguably, long overdue.

Detail:

Superstition - "a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation."

While sharing various ideas on a forum recently, it became evident there are many people (including and especially atheists, scientists and the religious) who still very deeply rely on superstitious beliefs.

And by "superstitious" beliefs, none are more evident than when the topic of Zeno's Paradoxes is considered.

To put things in context:

Imagine we have a number of belief-systems, let's call them BS1 and BS2. Let's now see how well they match a particular set of evidence (facts and observations, as can be readily experienced on planet Earth).

Category(s): 

Pages