XPost: alt.consciousness   
   From: suzych@swcp.com   
      
   In article , Atman   
    wrote:   
      
   > On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 13:28:54 -0700, Crowfoot  wrote:   
   >   
   > >Except that J.Z. Knight is in it, well along in the film so that her   
   > >moon-faced burbling won't alert you too early to the fact that this   
   > >movie is probably some self-promotion jobbie she's helped to bankroll   
   > >with the millions she's amassed pretending to channel ancient Atlantean   
   > >aristocrat "Ramtha", whose voice and delivery Knight's husband, I think   
   > >it was, caught her privately practicing in front of a mirror.   
   > >   
   > >Some of what's said in the film about science by scientists seems   
   > >interesting, but frankly I've seen some comments on scientific sites   
   > >about how what applies on extreme microatomic and microcellular levels   
   > >of matter and energy does not demonstrably apply the same way (if at   
   > >all) at the levels of function at which human beings live.  I've also   
   > >seen some challenges to the qualifications of some of the spokespersons   
   > >in the movie.   
   > >   
   > >Large Grain of Salt, I think; but interesting all the same.   
   >   
   > That sounds more like a personal attack than a movie critique.  Have   
   > you seen the movie at all?   
      
   Yup.  And I didn't dismiss the claims of the film out of hand, I just   
   advised an approach of healthy scepticism ("grain of salt").   
      
   > I don't know much about Knight, but spirit channeling has been a   
   > practice older than recorded history.   
      
   Of course it is, and I have no beef with it except that it's not   
   properly linked with what we know (and use) as "science" because   
   science deals in hypothesis + testing = truth, not hypothesis = truth   
   without the testing.  A physicist pal tells me that string theory not   
   only has not been proven, but is now being challenged as just one more   
   speculative idea flung against the face of the void, soon to be replaced   
   by something new.   
      
   As for channeling itself, I know a number of people who've experimented   
   with it (via automatic writing and other ways, since the kind of   
   trance-channeling that Knight does is much more difficult and   
   demanding than sitting down at your keyboard and seeing what comes   
   through when you calm your mind, relax, and let 'er rip). Part of my   
   problem with the movie is that *do* have some experience.   
      
   Some of what "Ramtha" has to say about human autonomy is in fact   
   something that I also believe; I just don't like to make an uncritical   
   jump from that (and the ubiquity of that idea in spiritual traditions)   
   to a scientific equivalency that simply is not, at present, demonstrable.   
   I'm also not convinced that what gets channeled is "spirits", that is,   
   dead folks hanging around tweaking at our sleeves because they want to   
   talk to us.  If one's core soul knows what there is to know because it   
   is in fact "God", then why couldn't we be hearing from our own wiser   
   selves in channeled info?  Why does there need to be a (mighty rich)   
   channeler between you and your own inner wisdom, an "ancient warrior   
   from Atlantis" as a costume?   
      
   I think you should try channeling for yourself, and see how easy it is   
   to "get" the message which, as you point out, has been there all along,   
   in the great traditions of spiritual study.  It won't even cost you the   
   price of a movie ticket, let alone what Knight and others who make   
   their living this way charge.   
      
   > As for the physics, yes, they are on the leading edge, and as always   
   > those on the leading edge are resisted by the "establishment".  At   
   > least they are not excommunicated or burned at the stake anymore,   
   > well, not normally.   
      
   They are not always "the leading edge"; there are plenty of "psychics"   
   who are con-artists and cult builders (the late Fred Lenz, author of   
   "Snowboarding to Nirvanah", was apparently one of these, using his   
   "enlightenment" mainly to con beautiful, unhappy women into his bed).   
      
   > But even the mainstream is starting to shift, "The Elegant Universe"   
   > by Nova and Brain Greene, said almost the same thing but didn't get   
   > into the philosophy or meaning of what advanced physics is revealing.   
      
   They wisely refrained, because it is not known.   
      
   > In addition, holistic medicine is now being accepted as the   
   > mainstream.  Just a few years ago it was viewed as quackery, now the   
   > mind/body connection is considered a fact by most doctors.   
      
   Yup.  I have worked with a local accupuncturist who for a time led the   
   movement to legitimize his art in my State, with considerable success.   
      
   > Here are a few of the ideas presented in the movie:   
   >   
   > 1) There is no objective reality, the observer always effects that   
   > which is observed.   
      
   These things don't necessarily follow.  There can be "objective reality"   
   that is nonetheless affected by being observed.  I'm not saying I can   
   "disprove" the statement that there's no objective reality, or even that   
   I disagree with it on all levels; only that it's not been, so far,   
   provable, so -- I take it with that old grain of salt again.   
      
   > 2) Matter has no intrinsic reality outside of consciousness.  It is   
   > but vibrating energy.   
      
   Here's my take on this: energy, vibrating or not, is not "unreal".  It's   
   what consciousness is made up of, as well as what everything else is   
   made up of.  When it clots up into matter, it acquires rules which are   
   true universally or locally or both.  If you walk off the roof of a   
   building, you will fall: gravity is a universal truth of the behavior of   
   matter, and to literally all intents and purposes of human beings, at   
   least, it is "real" in that you *must* deal with it as long as you are   
   in a physical body.  I will believe that until someone shows me personal   
   levitation minus wires, bounces, or other mechanical means.   
      
   > 3) Everything is inter-related, or entangled, with everything else   
   > (all is one)   
      
   I too think that everything is energy, fluid or relatively static and   
   clumped.   
      
   > 4) There are many dimensions that exist beyond our common plain of   
   > reference.  These dimensions can be accessed through higher, or   
   > altered states of consciousness.   
      
   I think so too, and have done a bit of such traveling of my own (so has   
   just about anyone who dreams, which means everyone whether you recall   
   your dreams or not).   
      
   > Expand your awareness and your awareness expands.   
      
   Is that what you meant to write?   
      
   > Our ideas of reality, shape our ideas of reality.   
   > Change you idea of reality, and you change your reality.   
      
   Proof?  I've never had it work for me, and I find it useful to be a   
   little hardheaded about my interface with realities like not being able   
   to breathe under water or in the vacuum of outer space.   
      
   > It's all relative to your plain of reference, your idea.   
      
   Asylums are full of people whose planes of reference are illusions they   
   believe in with all their hearts and souls.  Do you think psychotics   
   are just too feeble-minded to make their individual realities manifest   
   to others?   
      
   > 5) We are not our body, we are not our actions, we are not our   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)