Stephen's blog

It "must be" about time

While chatting to a psychologist recently I happened to explain a bit about my work.

I explained that while I'm happy to dig into the nitty-gritty of quantum theory and experiment, not that many people seem too interested. So I recounted how, talking with a photographer friend, I explained some of the practical benefits of quantum physics -- such as travelling with safety.

Now, I explained to this particular lady that with the benefits of quantum physics we now have sufficient evidence to draw some remarkable conclusions. And that is that (to quote someone I expect is way smarter than me) ...

any correct model of reality has to incorporate explicit non-local connections. No local reality can explain the type of world we live in. Furthermore, (since that model) is based on experimental facts, it is independent of whether quantum theory is correct or not.1

in other words ...

Whatever reality may be, it must be non-local.2

I explained that most of us are as a general rule locally-focused so we don't pay much attention to the nonlocal signaling that's ever-present, ubiquitous and vitally supports our ability to live life (more on that vitality and necessity another time -- hint: Dr Damasio's work with frontal lobe-damaged patients).

Category(s): 

Timeless knowledge

Voices of the dayWhile visiting a friend in Barkandji Country (Aboriginal country around Wilcannia, and along the Darling River), I was given a book "Voices of the first day", by Robert Lawlor. It contains concepts and ideas which are highly congruent with my basic model of The Theory of One and All that I intuited and explained in my book, BE and BECOME.

When researching materials to support the ideas in BE and BECOME I came across a number of leading physicists who voiced a more technical explanation: within certain bounds and constraints (via various 'lattice-works' or matrices, such as fractals), matter and energy is "plastic" — it can be molded or influenced with mind1. At this stage of our evolution it's not yet a noticeably large influence, but it's the principle that is important. It can be guided (again, within constraints), by virtue of the fact that all bits of matter and energy are 'instinctively choosing' to form the world we know.2 They 'instinctively choose' how to collapse the wave-function (collapse possibility into actuality -- see Fig. BI_RPA). As physicist Freeman Dyson explains:

Category(s): 

Making God small. Not good.

The white-bearded guy in the skyWhile at a social function recently I got chatting with some religious people who started to talk about how we're all 'fallen', sinners in need of saving, and how we're all needing His forgiveness, and so on.

Now, from a systems perspective this all makes no sense.1

So I asked, "if God is infinite, isn't all necessarily WITHIN God? After all," I added, "if we and all else, including evil is not of God, then we're outside and beyond the infinite — and that would make us and evil bigger than God. That would make God small relative to us, and relative to evil."

"Best not do that," I said.

"Think of it this way," I explained "God is infinite ... literally that means "He" has no limits — he's everywhere, and in everything, everyone, every spirit, including Evil. In other words, everything and everyone is of God.  It's His energy that's behind all the muck-ups, and the beautiful wonderful things, and ..."

If all — including Evil — is not God's creation then that means "He" has limits to where His creative energy goes. That makes Him small. Best not do that.

If it's not His energy, then it's someone else's, but that again means He has limits to where His energy goes.2

Pretty straight-forward, I would think, to understand all this.

Category(s): 

Creativity, Competition and Depression

Recently I had cause to reflect on the nature of competition (in this case for a Trademarked name I have).

By its nature, competition reduces everyone to winners or losers with the winners having to 'take' from the losers. It's about dividing the pie more unevenly, whereas creativity and innovation only ADDS to the mix and expands the pie.

Category(s): 

on the subject of ''free will'

While emailing back and forwards to a friend who's scientifically minded (and credentialed), we got into the nitty-gritty of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, and what it all means as far as 'free will' is concerned, and our daily lives.

My friend doesn't believe in any 'genuine' free-will, in that the choices we make are all, in a sense, 'determined' by forces or systems beyond ourselves (technically speaking, by downward causative influences).

Category(s): 

Astrology, the Enneagram and Seth

Contents:

In brief

The Table of comparisons highlights a noticeable difference between the 3 methods of classifications. Column 1 (Seth) responds well to the question: "Where do those who belong to a particular category focus their energy, time and commitment for best effect and fulfillment?"

The Enneagram responds "less directly" to this question (in that the Enneagram may offer insight that one is a 'leader' but not where to apply leadership for best effect or fulfillment).

Astrological categories provide little if any meaningful answers to this question.

Astrology and the Enneagram are not in the least "systems-orientated". They do not take account of the interactive dynamics of biological, ecological or social systems, such as that of one's local community, or how the global economy impacts and influences behaviours and attitudes. They do not therefore provide substantial insights into how we ought best interact with the world around us. They, in effect, offer little guidance as to where we might apply our energy and focus for best results and fulfillment.

Introduction

Table comparison Seth Enneagram AstrologyThe fields and disciplines of psychological testing, astrology, numerology and the Enneagram, are, like all fields of human understanding, based on certain beliefs about the nature of reality.

So when we seek to group people into meaningful categories it's prudent to first establish the belief-system by which those categorisations are made. If the belief-system is unduly limited, individuals and groups will necessarily be categorised or 'squeezed' into various psychological or astrological 'boxes' to fit the observed behaviours. In the process those capabilities and potentials that lay beyond the accepted framework of belief — which could otherwise be recognised and developed for personal and social benefit — will be ignored or denied.

Category(s): 

The urge to categorise

UR IIWhen we reflect on the number of people (more usually women1 ) who believe in Astrology, as well as those who believe in various other 'ologies' we can be reasonably confident that there's an underlying shared trait or need — the need to belong, and to categorise people.

Personality tests (e.g. DISC, or Myers-Briggs) are widely (if not almost universally) used to help decide who's suited to particular roles in businesses and organisations.

So when a friend started extolling the great relevance and benefit of understanding the Enneagram (a process of grouping people into one of nine types, or 'tribes'), I decided to look deeper into this particular habit.

Category(s): 

Pages