Belief

What does 'holodynamic system' mean?

[This section was originally part of "The Modern Superstitions of Science and Religion", but given its importance and that it is central to much of what I write and present in courses, is now a separate post]

The term holo-dynamic system is (in my opinion) a more descriptive understanding of "holomovement" — a term coined by the late physicist, David Bohm. Bohm used the term holomovement to more accurately describe the inherent holographic nature of reality.

Category(s): 

Project Manage Your ...

Recently I sat in a meeting of people who discussed all sorts of spiritual matters and ideas, including the law of attraction etc.

When discussing the law of attraction, I asked a simple question that caused a fair bit of upset. And it's an obvious question that is often ignored, or avoided when people talk about 'attracting abundance' into their lives.

The question is this: what value are you adding to your community, in order to reasonably expect abundance will be given you?

Category(s): 

Simple Tools for Clarity, Understanding and Betterment

  • Simple Tools: for Clarity, Understanding and Betterment.Simple Tools: for Clarity, Understanding and Betterment

    Table of Contents

    • Figure 1: Some clarity would be nice
    • 1. The Stretch Tool
    • Figure 2: Flapping in circles?
    • 2. The Choice Tool
    • Figure 3: Real-ising possible into actual
    • What's so wrong with perfection?
    • Reluctant to stretch?
    • Figure 4: Evolution of us
    • 3. The Big Now Tool
    • Figure 5: 'Little now' within 'BIG now'
    • Relationships to reality
    • Figure 6: Possible, probable, actual
    • Playpens of life
    • Space-time aspects of masculine and feminine
      • Bosons
      • Fermions
    • Figure 7: Reasons to relate
    • Creatively keeping, or keeping creative
    • Figure 8: Free-will and Fate
    • Hierarchies?
    • Figure 9: Childhood: Good vs Bad Oppositions
    • 4. The Make-Like-Einstein Tool
    • Single-minded
    • Odd one out
    • Ignore the Over-dog
    • As natural as
    • Play with it
    • The Future As
    • 5. The Cycle Tool
    • Figure 10: The past "pushes"
    • Happened futures
    • Quality over quantity
    • Figure 11: Heart and Head
    • Figure 12: Focus, while embracing possibilities
    • Common as
    • Detaching from detachment
    • All together
    • 6. 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..
    • Figure 13: Co-Operated
    • (7) Additional
    • Figure 14: Cycled realities
    • Figure 15: The Totality of One and All

An elegant life

I recently chimed into a forum discussing the subject of quantum physics, and the implications thereof.

Out of which came some ways of explaining my views in a more 'elegant' manner.

Following are my edited excerpts of my final few posts to this forum:

------------------------

Years ago, when in a self-development course, the teacher said "you're 100% responsible for your reality" ... me, in response "nah, that can't be true" (in class), He, "it's 100%". Me, "Nah, it can't be because ... yadda yadda". Class now cranky with me, an upstart who won't sit quietly and obediently listen.

Long story short. It is a literal 100%. I've done a lot of work over the years to nail the mechanics of how that can occur.

But here's the thing. If not 100%, then what figure is it? 100% has a certain 'purity' to it that I found compelling.

Science can't get near that 100%, blaming chance, or randomness or god knows what else. That's inelegant.

100% is elegant.

Category(s): 

Points about points

I was recently contacted regarding my work -- primarily concerning materials on the Belief Institute website.

The person (supportive of my work) sent me a list of 'points' by another critic who argues good articles, or beliefs should comply to various conditions:

Here's my reply to those 'points'.

  1. should not contain tautologies;

    English is a rich language, and while tautologies are a useful concept, the fact that one can frame an idea or concept (there's one now) differently using different words/approaches, reveals greater nuance to the concept or idea. Pun intended. So I wouldn't get too concerned about grammatical correctness.

  2. should not contain notion-metaphor transmutations (e.g., "power" it is a concept in Physics, but being used in Psychology, say, as "power of imagination", it becomes a metaphor);

    Well, this is a poor point. We don't know what causes 'power' in physics.

    We know now with around 30 years of research data from Princeton's PEAR that our minds have the power (physical) to move objects.

    "The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measureable influences on physical reality. The researchers have also developed several theoretical models that attempt to accommodate the empirical results, which cannot be explained by any currently recognized scientific model."

    So psychological power is related to physical power. To say otherwise would require certain (incorrect) assumptions to be correct. Which they aren't. E.g. the power to collapse the wave-function.

    Better that you don't get me started on this one ... :)

Category(s): 

Most superstitious era in history?

In view of my awkward question concerning the deeper nature of physical movement, in various forums I've received what appears to be unanimous negative responses. Some quite vitriolic and abusive.

It seems then that there is an argument to be made that we're living through one of, or perhaps THE most superstitious era in history.

Many scientists often lambaste the church for what they did to Galileo, and prior to him Giordano Bruno. Many argue the demonstrated 'closed-mindedness' of the church held back scientific advancement to a considerable degree.

Category(s): 

Leading God: Raw Individuality

At a dinner party recently I explained that "genuine creativity leads God", in that everyone else (including God1) is genuinely, gob-smackingly surprised by our raw originality.

One woman was deeply shocked and horrified by the idea. She said she completely "shut down" with regards to anything else I had to say. Golly.

Category(s): 

Believing is seeing

It is with some irony that skeptic Micheal Shermer should write a book on the "Believing Brain" -- that we see things not as they are, but through the lens of personal and cultural belief.

A review of his book (in the Boss Magazine supplement in the Financial Review) explains part of the irony:

A central theme is the purposeful formation of beliefs, emerging from subjective emotional and psychological roots nurtured in social environments and society.

Category(s): 

Pages