XPost: alt.consciousness   
   From: Be@Here.Now   
      
   On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:31:41 -0700, Crowfoot  wrote:   
      
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   I've never done any channeling myself, but I often enter deep states   
   in meditation in which insight seems to flow.  I know one channeler   
   very personally .  The angel Michael claims to be coming through her.   
   I'm still not 100% convened, even knowing the person very well.   
   However, I do believe that they are being honest with me.   
      
   I don't think that Knight had much to do with the film.  She has only   
   about 3 minutes of interview in the whole film.  It's really not about   
   her or channeling itself.  It focuses on the ideas being presented.   
      
   I did hear a story that Knight sued another psychic for   
   "stealing" her spirit contact for about 5 years.  It appears that she   
   even won the lawsuit, very odd indeed!   
      
   I believe in channeling, but I do not think that the ability to trance   
   channel, or the information received, is always of a high spiritual   
   nature.  Some do have some good teachings.  Such as Seth and   
   Abraham-Hicks.   
      
      
   >> 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).   
   >   
      
   That was physics, not psychics.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   The implications of quantum physics are really rocking the philosophy   
   of many scientists.  Even Einstein had difficulty accepting the   
   implications.  Einstein's famous quote,"God does my play dice with the   
   universe" was a reaction of the probability wave theorems of quantum   
   physics.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   This is sort of like the old question, "if a tree falls in the woods   
   and no one hears it, does it make a sound".  Well, there are quantum   
   physics theorems that say that if no consciousness perceives the   
   event, then there was no event.  These scientists even have some   
   experimental data to offer as evidence to support this theorem.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   By scientific definition, energy is the ability, or potential ability,   
   to produce change.  And what is it that energy can change?  Well, it's   
   just other energy.  It's very circular, everything(energy) is the   
   ability to change everything(energy).  Doesn't tell you a whole lot   
   about the nature of energy.   
      
   I think(from intuition) that it's energy, in its most basic form, that   
   is the result of consciousness.  Not the other way around.   
      
   There have been so many reports of people manipulating matter by means   
   of thought alone, that I think it, at least, deserves much   
   investigation.   
      
   The next leap in technology just maybe the ability to manipulate   
   gravity and inertia.  There maybe far more to this "universal truth"   
   than we have even begun to understand.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   Current theory is that all is vibrating strings, or at least from a 3   
   dimensional perspective.  From a much higher dimension perspective it   
   gets very hard to describe.  It's just tiny little chunks of ???  that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)