Aha, expanded
31 July 2007 — butchjaxHehe, even more explanation. China asked a question in the comments that triggered some deeper understanding on my part. She said:
What about if when a meditative state is achieved such that one forgets that gravity exists, and that there are such things as “physics” or any other limitations that are supposed to apply…if one really gets into the zone…it’s easy to forget about those things…
I don’t think I’ve ever levitated…but when I do a 40+ minute sit, I often lose my sense of body. It’s a little unnerving when it first happens and there is the natural slant to “hold onto the body” which would prevent that floaty thing from happing.
But once I got used to it happening, neat things happen on the other side of attachment.
and I responded:
I’m going to focus on China’s questions since that is the level at which I’m looking at this. Sue Ann, you may be right, but it isn’t the level that I’m comprehending right now, so I don’t really have much to say about it.
China, I’ve been thinking about this a bit, and perhaps this will make some sense. I believe that, yes, the mind needs to suspend disbelief and accept other possibilities for levitation or other skills develop. I don’t mean to discount that element. However, I don’t believe it explains how something happens, just makes it easier to happen.
However, I see no reason for the most basic laws of newton to be incorrect on any level. I believe that a force of some kind is needed for motion. That means, the force of gravity needs to be balanced and then overcome by some other force. Gravity doesn’t just ‘turn off’. Perhaps I’m limiting myself by this, but I don’t think so. But, I’m not limiting myself to the standard forces when saying gravity has to be balanced. If there is an unnamed force that we can’t easily detect, yet is power at the higher dimensions, then there is no violation. Our problem is that, looking only in 3 dimensions we are not taking into account the whole system - quite simply because we can’t. As 3 dimensional beings, we can’t detect higher dimensions without transcending these 3 dimensions. I believe that can be done on the astral, for lack of a better explanation. I’m not talking about lower level astral stuff, but higher levels or vibration states.
Now, what I’m thinking, to get back to the situation at hand is that, when we meditate and we reach a higher vibrational state, we are tapping into higher dimensions also. Then, when we set our intention to do something - say, levitate - our intention is activating on all levels, including higher dimensions. Therefore, we have made something happen that we can’t actually detect except to the extent that it manifests in our 3 dimensional world. Hence, we levitate. Yet since we didn’t see what happened at the higher dimensions, we think it’s magic, or it violates physics. But that simply isn’t true. Physics just looks violated because we’re looking at a small part. We aren’t looking at the whole system. And that is very important.


31 July 2007 at 19:17
I understand what you mean, Dear. I will also say that your preoccupation with ‘force’ is what is creating the blocks in understanding. Gravity is pull, not push. The universe operates on Laws of Attraction.
What China shared, was an absence of the use of force, primarily a mental one. It is this letting go, that allows us to experience greater/expanded realities.
31 July 2007 at 19:26
Of course gravity is attractive. A force, however, is a push or a pull. It is not restricted to being attractive or repelling. What I’m doing is explaining something in 3 dimensional wording and understanding, even though that thing is not limited to 3 dimensions.
I agree, letting go of the idea that, what we’ve experience in 3 dimensions is all there is, is important. But that still doesn’t explain how or why something happens. It just allows it to happen. That is different than why something happens.
The universe may, metaphysically, work on the laws of attraction, but that does not explain why magnets repel, nor why atoms of the same charge repel, while atoms of opposite charges attract. I don’t think you can completely ignore all of the things that repel in 3 dimensions.
31 July 2007 at 21:57
I’m jumping into the deep end of the pool with some abandon…
Seems the buzy words / phrase the moment is “The Law of Attraction”…
So… a nice little story…
Note the “Law of Attraction” at work in this experience as told by Mother Teresa.
“One day in Calcutta a man came with a prescription and said, ‘My only child is dying and this medicine can be brought only from outside of India.’ Just at that time, while we were still talking, a man came with a basket of medicine. Right on the top of that basket, there was this medicine. If it had been inside, I would not have seen it. If he had come before, or if he had come afterward, I could not have seen it. But just at the time, out of millions and millions of children in the world, God in his tenderness was concerned with this little child of the slums of Calcutta enough to send, just at that time, that amount of medicine to save that child. I praise the tenderness and the love of God, because every little one, in a poor family or a rich family, is a child of God, created by the Creator of all things.”
+++
If one devotely believes in God and the teachings that some omnipotent being created us to mess with us… then all that ‘happens’ MUST be due to HIS/HER/IT’s direct intervention.
However…
Seems it would more properly be called “The Law of Attention” — for, it is not until we focus/concentrate on a thing/action/desire that we start to ‘pay attention’ to those happy coincidences, serendipitous moments, etc. which come along to ‘prove’ the law. And what amazes most when they start to notice these ‘miraculous moments’ — is that those who REALLY pay attention could have told them this sort of thing goes on all the time, every day… and it’s not such a miracle… but how the Universe has always worked!
But, I suppose if you would rather praise and chant the ‘latest selling Secret of the month’ or extoll the absolute-ness of a well used dogmatic system of belief and faith… then, I guess it will still ‘work’ — even if it does not really explain the ‘why’ of what is going on…. just, who pockets the money for revealing the ‘truth’ to you.
31 July 2007 at 22:01
I don’t think you’ve actually studied anything with the law of attraction, based on what you’ve said here. The law of attraction doesn’t involve a deity at all. Nor is it simply attention. Now, I haven’t watched the Secret, but it seems like they dropped the ball based on the number of times I hear people misunderstanding the law of attraction. That’s why I stick with the best source I’ve found in Esther and Jerry Hicks. Nothing dogmatic about it, it just is.
1 August 2007 at 00:02
No…
What I MEANT to convey was/is…
–IF someone’s belief system is deity centric… they will attribute the actions/results to the ‘actions’ of that deity.
–IF someone bases it on “The Law of Attraction” as put forth in the latest round of New Age-y stuff… then, they will see it / interpret all the results through THAT mind filter.
The Secret… no… I haven’t done that. I am not convinced it is any more a ’secret’ (or worth the money most are asking for the book or to watch their movie). However, the Secret is as guilty of tossing about “Law” jargon as if it IS the answer… just as much as is tossed out… “All is energy”, etc. without any real thought as to what they heck they are actually referring to or basing their nebulous hand waving on.
In 3-D space (as we have experienced it and tested it to date), there are reproducible results for certain tests of “The Law of Attraction”. It is unfortunate we do not have the comprehension / language to better describe this ‘greater / Universal application of “The Law of Attention/Attraction”.
1 August 2007 at 00:19
Ok, honestly, I have no idea what you’re complaint actually is. What research/study have you done on the subject? And I hate this label of new age that’s thrown on everything. It’s a copout that allows people to discount something. But they’re the ones missing out on things that are truly helpful. Plenty of crap out there that isn’t useful at all, but people miss out on the stuff that is actually helpful.
1 August 2007 at 01:42
Actually, I did not originally post ‘with a complaint’ — more of a passing look at the comment made by Sue Ann “Gravity is pull, not push. The universe operates on Laws of Attraction.”
I was trying to point out that she, as well as you… tend to look at situations using the mind / experience filters you are most comfortable with… ie, the references to deity based ‘observation’ versus those based on very old, ‘New Age’ dialogues.
+++
What do I ‘know’ about the “Law of Attraction”?
The “Law of Attraction” normally states that people experience the corresponding manifestations of their predominant thoughts, feelings, words, and actions and that people therefore have direct control over reality and their lives through thought alone. A person’s thoughts (conscious and unconscious), emotions, beliefs and actions are said to attract corresponding positive and negative experiences “through the resonance of their energetic vibration.”
The “law” states “you get what you think about; your thoughts determine your experience.” Many supporters of the “law” claim that with practice a person can use the law of attraction to change their lives. Using these ’secrets’ they will sell you — through books, lectures, tapes, whatever, — they will show you how to be a millionaire in a year, the greatest salesperson in the world, etc. Being ‘positive’ is a ‘good thing’. The only people who are making the ‘big bucks’ are the ones who are selling what has been around for more than a few centuries.
***
Many allege the statement by Buddha, “What you have become is the result of what you have thought”, is an expression of the idea that thoughts introduced into reality can attract like energy. In Hebrew Scripture, Proverbs 23:7 states: “As a man thinketh in his heart so is he.” It is also often alleged that the same idea can be found in beliefs as ancient as Hinduism.
In the West, the idea of “positive thinking” became popular during the 19th century. One of the earliest known formulations of the ideas now known as as the “Law of Attraction” was contained in the 1906 book, ‘Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World’ by William Walker Atkinson (editor of New Thought magazine.) Dozens of books in the first half of the 20th century addressed the topic under various names of “positive thinking” and the “Law of Attraction.”
And then there is the latest version of the idea… in March 2006 a film named The Secret was developed around the “Law of Attraction”, and was later developed into a book by the same name.
***
Proponents of the modern ‘Law of Attraction’ claim that it has roots in Quantum Physics. According to the ‘law of attraction’, thoughts have an energy that attracts like energy. In order to control this energy, proponents claim people must practice four things:
- Know what one desires and ask the universe for it. (The “universe” is mentioned broadly, stating that it can be anything from God to an unknown source of energy.)
- Focus one’s thought upon the thing desired with great feeling such as enthusiasm or gratitude.
- Feel and behave as if the object of one’s desire is on its way.
- Be open to receiving it.
… and of course, avoiding negative thoughts so you don’t prevent ‘good things’ from coming to you.
***
It can be said that the “Law of Attraction” can be wonky as it has no scientific foundation in which to base it’s claims. Although many try with hand wavy connections using examples from Quantum Physics and quotes from Buddha that are ’shown’ to prove there is something ’special’ going on…. even though a more intense look into their claims shows they tend to skip the ‘parts’ that actually show there is nothing (to date) which can demonstrate an effect /reaction /result (experimentally reproducible) that any action on the quantum level has produced an effect at the grosser levels of ‘everyday matter and energy’. To date, all of the evidence has been anecdotal and, because of the self-selecting nature of positive reports as well as the subjective nature of any results, highly susceptible to misinterpretations like confirmation bias and selection bias.
Even giving a nod to the possibility of some brain generated connection to the quantum level energy activity — it is unclear what principles of quantum physics behave the way proponents of the Law of Attraction claim.
And, I have a gripe about the use of the term “Law” — as it implies it is an established ‘fact’ of ‘the way the Universe as we know it operates’… when in fact, as a ‘law’ it has not been established as most ‘laws’ are… through observation and repeatible experimentation.
+++
So, after all that… do I know much about it? Not really… no more than what I’ve looked into over the decades ((( some of those old ‘early 20th century books on ‘positive thinking’, etc. and some of the latest in the last 3 decades. )))
And, I use the term New Age as a broad, general label (one that has been around since the late 60’s) — because that’s where this ‘law’ seems to belong… in the very broad, hand wavy category of “what is old (see the reference to Buddha and Hebrew scriptures) is ‘new’ again… and again… and again.)
+++
I am NOT discounting the experience of China — nor that ’something’ happened.
Personally, I think we really jumped the track of ‘what happened’ when we started with words like ‘push, pull, counter acting forces’, and then tossed in a very non-factual based premise like “law of attraction’ into that same mix of terms.
So, circular semi-logic.
Something happened. Sue Ann sees it through her “Law of Attraction” filters. You are trying to comprehend it through your background & understanding of physics and science and jedi studies. Again, it all boils down to trying to put labels on something we do not have enough solid experience with to be PUTTING labels on it… at least not with the words & terms we have right now.
1 August 2007 at 01:55
And you are dealing with your filter too. The thing is, what I’m starting to finally tap into is something that I ‘know’ at a much higher level and lecture other beings on while I sleep. I know this through a friend who attends these lectures with her guide from time to time.
The problem with requiring scientific proof is stated in my explanation. We can’t detect anything higher than 3 dimensions. It’s simply not possible. And, if it is true, as I have a hunch it is, we will never prove these things at a scientific level because it’s impossible to detect the higher dimensions. Even if we had a way to link quantum mechanic theory, that wouldn’t prove anything because there is no way to prove it experimentally. This is why I don’t care about this burden of ‘proof’. It’s a waste of time.
As for old things becoming new, there is also understanding that is gained through the ages. Sure, concepts have been put forth before, but not often to much depth. A few sentences from the Buddha or Jesus or whatever is not much at all. But the books that Esther and Jerry Hicks put out, much more useful. And not focused just on money. They focus on all aspects of life. They aren’t teaching you how to get rich quick. There are a few other people who are doing the same thing. Even the person that runs the prosperity game, based on these principles, does not charge for it. I believe that’s the key here. Teachers that do not charge a fee for at least a certain level of knowledge. Also, I feel no need for any other teachers on this, because I personally feel the Abraham books teach me everything I need to know about it, as long as I actually pay attention to it and not skim too quickly.
In any case, if you feel it’s not useful, than there’s nothing I can say to convince you. Understanding the law of attraction, which I have no qualms calling a law, can make life a lot smoother. But, life is still about choices. You can choose to make things difficult, or you can choose to make things easier, even in the midst of difficult things. After all, we choose those too.
1 August 2007 at 11:02
You want physics, you want pics, then read it…it actually shows the electron paths in magnetic fields.
cheniere.org/books/HoJo/new_page…
Take it a step further…what LACK in quality of character are we/do we express, because that’s the same LACK of character fiber, we’re going to attract back to us.
1 August 2007 at 11:11
Ok, new rule. lol Can everyone be slightly more specific so I know what you’re responding/referring to? I’m getting confused.
1 August 2007 at 12:49
Sorry Sue Ann, that is a computer ’simulation’ of some basic waveforms and magnetic and electrical fields –not the actual path of electrons along a magnetic field. (And, no one has YET pinpointed a single electron in motion (see Heisenberg uncertainty principle)
And, incidentally, it’s not electrons that ‘flow’ along a magnetic field anyway. Electrons flowing along a conductor (metal or plasma gas) can induce a magnetic field effect. College: basic electromagnetic field theory — classroom, 1984.
I am NOT personally looking for a scientific / physics explanations… though, if research was done to show ‘how something works’ I’d look into it. I do not think science is the answer to everything since science is as ‘filter-able’ as any other exploration. I would simply prefer something less hand wavy than the nebulous ‘attraction’ or ‘faith’ or ‘just because’ answer when exploring phenomena such as that described by Jax/China.
1 August 2007 at 13:04
Electrons can flow just fine without a conductor. A conductor is simply a material that allows charge to flow relatively easily. Electrons and charges flow just fine in a vacuum, which is by definition an anti-material.
And you need to realize, Rob, that my explanation is based on knowledge I gained from reading other theories on gravity, reputable scientists publishing in reputable journals. That’s where I got the idea of gravity being multi-dimensional. But honestly, there’s no reason it can’t be. Unfortunately it’s not a theory I know how to test.
The thing is, a majority of theory is hand wavy. We can have math that describes it, but that makes it no less hand wavy. That’s science, hand waving all over the place.
This is the danger, however, of people having only and undergraduate introduction to a subject and then reading the popular books. It doesn’t get into the ‘reality’ of the subject. And unfortunately, even with graduate school my education is woefully inadequate. So, I have to trust my learning process. I figure, if while I sleep I can teach this stuff to other guides and beings, then at that level, I’m pretty darn correct. So, I’m going to trust that, as things make sense to me, to trust that. That doesn’t mean it’s 100% correct, simply that it’s a correct step in the learning process for me.
1 August 2007 at 14:42
Hey… I never said your idea of multi-dimensional effects. Heck in string theory they posit 17 dimensionality… (sometimes more or less depending on the theory).
Something ‘extra’ has to be going on beyond the 3-D… when I can have a friend who could repeatedly teleport himself or items (caution.. batteries tend to explode.. so don’t try this with your laptop or cell phones); do accelerated healing (hours instead of weeks with near fatal injury); and some major telepathy/mind work.
Arthur C. Clarke said –”Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
In this case, it’s not advanced technology but, advanced mind/body/energy work… but it still seems like magic. My friend was quick to to discuss neural nodes and trigger sequences, etc. At my level, it’s was magic.
As for ‘level of education’ — I can only process / evaluate at the level I have. If finances and circumstances permit… there are many ‘advanced’ courses I plan to take to further my understanding in a LOT of areas. In the meantime, I read and evaluate accordingly.
1 August 2007 at 15:02
Of course, we all evaluate based on our knowledge level. What I hope you will keep in mind is that lower level undergraduate science is very simplified. Upper level undergraduate is a bit simplified, and graduate level is a lot less simplified. So keep that in mind when dealing with things like this. I would caution against using too many arguments based on physics 1 or 2, as it is overly simplified, and often incorrect, especially when dealing with stuff like this. It just can’t explain it.
As for the magnetic quadrapoles and such, I believe that is in my Jackson EM text. Doesn’t mean I understand it though. lol Also, that doesn’t mean it has a huge effect on the large scale. The reason we don’t have a good explanation for quantum affects on a large scale is because it doesn’t apply in this regime. Quantum affects are valid on the quantum scale. To go from microscopic to macroscopic, you’re going to change the way you explain things because everything manifests differently. And I’ve been trying to find actual journals and stuff by this Howard Johnson guy, because when it comes to this stuff, I’m going to be extra skeptical. The quest for free energy and such has been going on for a long time and has taken a lot of money from gullible people. So, I’m not fond of reading something by someone else who took what he did and then twisted it. I’d rather go to the source and see what I gain from it from a neutral perspective, not of one trying to prove free energy or anything else. Not that this book is of this type, just that I can’t tell very well and want to be sure.
1 August 2007 at 20:15
Butchjax, I’m going to address this to you and Robert, will be addressed at the same time.
You wrote recently of a discussion which disintegrated. I wrote about that. That’s what happens when ‘understanding’ is not what is being valued.
I write of ‘law of attraction’, specifically addressing quantum physics or any other kind of physics. It’s gravity that attracts the electrons to circle around the nucleus. It’s gravity that keeps the earth moving in orbit around the sun. It’s gravity that keep the moon in orbit around the earth. And seeing that in every nucleus and atomic structure there is more space then ‘matter’, we have a choice as to whether we choose to experience the ‘matter’ of the ‘space’. We are both.
I say ‘law of attraction’.
I don’t exactly know what went on over the weekend or the past week in your life and I don’t need to know. What I do know is that you’ve been radiating a ‘tone’ and ‘essence’ a ‘field’ of being insecure about your person. Not too sure of your self. You might not even be aware that you are radiating it.
Up pops Robert. Radiating the same emotionally insecure essence about himself and, what does he proceed to do? He decides he’s going to conflict. AT THAT POINT, Robert made his intentions known. And those intentions weren’t anything remotely associated with Understanding. Not in the having, not in the giving or not in the receiving.
For all Robert wanted out of it, was to ‘win’ something. Suck energy from you and anyone else he could manage to draw into his game. Your radiance of temporarily feeling ‘weak’ and ‘insecure’ drew him in, like a moth to a flame. For being insecure himself, the only way he gets to feel ‘empowered’ is by ‘winning’ fights. Playing the illusionary game of taking energy from others. Without conflict he can’t feed.
The Law of Attraction. Negative fields (your feelings of insecurity) attracts negative poles (insecure robert)
I guess I’m the dweeb in all this, for I imagined you truly were seeking Understanding and that means a comprehension of the Heart. It’s a knowing, not just a thinking. And it has been towards that goal, that I have based my responses.
1 August 2007 at 20:32
Gravity doesn’t keep an electron orbiting a nucleus. Hell, electrons don’t even orbit traditionally. The strength of gravity is so miniscule at the atomic level that you can ignore it. The dominant forces are electromechanical, as we’re dealing with charged particles, the weak force which causes decay, and the strong force which holds the nucleons together.
Plus, if everything were truly attractive, what of all the things that repel? You can talk about magnetic fields at the atomic scale, but that doesn’t explain the macro. And that’s what I’m looking at. The large scale affects that we see in our normal existence. At that level, things do repel.
Now, I accept that our thoughts attract, but I will not assume this applies to everything, because I don’t believe that to be true in our 3 dimensional regime. Perhaps the attraction happens at another level or dimension - I can’t exclude that possibility any more than I can prove it. lol
So maybe I’m missing something here. That’s always possible. But there’s also the possibility that you aren’t as right as you think you are too, eh?
I’m just trying to figure this out without just believing other people, but seeing what actually makes sense to me. That doesn’t meant that I won’t listen, but if it doesn’t make sense even after further thought, then either it’s incorrect, or it’s beyond what I’m capable of understanding at this point in time. Either way, the only thing to do is keep working on my own understanding until something else resonates. Or something like that.
1 August 2007 at 22:40
When you radiate ‘insecure’ emotionally, you attract ‘emotionally insecure’ back. It’s our EMOTIONAL radiances that attracts.
Attraction is a POWER, not a force. I realizes they may be acquainted in your head but you ask to go beyond just a mental comprehension. You seek ‘to know’. For yourself. You seek the experience of ’self assured’ rather then that of ’self doubt’ as concerns your abilities as awareness of these abilities expands.
So I am endeavoring to communicate that if you want to ’see’ for yourself, all you need do is focus on your emotions. Our heads can mess us up everytime. Our false egos, our emotionally insecure blow hard false egos, love to lead us by the nose using our heads. Using Vanity, Flattery and Conflict.
If you desire to see beyond the 3d physical, you have to look BEYOND what our physical eyes can physically perceive. For that, is how we consciously perceive interdimensionally, not just in dream states.
In all the discussion you and robert have had, none of it has had any relevance to expanding on what China, shared. And China has been silent. Maybe because China knows it’s not something that can be forced?
Like ‘relaxation’ cannot be forced. Nor can Willing surrendering in Trust.
And it’s silly to imagine attraction can be forced. Obedience can be forced. Compliance can be forced. But not genuine attraction.
We can ‘force’ or ‘manipulate’ people through their emotional needs, to need us but, not Love us.
There is much illusion, much ‘maya’ surrounding the issue of Power. Most of it, related to being controlling and most of that related to being afraid of coping with what the future may hold. It’s fear oriented, coming from our gut level.
And not our Heart.
To your Own HEART be true, for it will serve your Truly.
1 August 2007 at 22:51
Huh? I’m not afraid of what the answer is to what my original question was, which was how something like meditation occurs. But now I’m in the middle of other explanations that don’t resonate with me. I’m simply responding to why they don’t make sense to me.
I do understand, however, that to improve how much I know, I need to not worry about being right or wrong, or whether or not someone agrees with me. And, a majority of the time, I really don’t care if anyone else gets this. This theory is for my own understanding. And it doesn’t even matter if I figure it out, because i don’t think it’s necessary at all in order to do these things. It’s just something my brain has been playing with. And I think my brain is done, as I haven’t thought about this stuff anymore, unless in response to a question. My brain is satisfied enough with the answers I have come up with, time to move on. lol
but I did learn something useful. To remember that, in order to learn most effectively, and to understand deeply, I need to not fear ‘not-knowing’ and people not understanding me.
Oh, and my insecurity lately has nothing to do with this theory. It has everything to do with losing my confidence towards a job. But I’m going to address that in a new post.
1 August 2007 at 22:57
Sheesh… this is so messed up.
Sue Ann — much as I tend to agree with most of what you tend to post… I am afraid this time …
“I write of ‘law of attraction’, specifically addressing quantum physics or any other kind of physics. It’s gravity that attracts the electrons to circle around the nucleus. It’s gravity that keeps the earth moving in orbit around the sun. It’s gravity that keep the moon in orbit around the earth. And seeing that in every nucleus and atomic structure there is more space then ‘matter’, we have a choice as to whether we choose to experience the ‘matter’ of the ‘space’.”
Jax addressed this already. Your statement initially back on July 31st was what raised my antenna…
…the whole — “I understand what you mean, Dear. I will also say that your preoccupation with ‘force’ is what is creating the blocks in understanding. Gravity is pull, not push. The universe operates on Laws of Attraction.”
Not only did it come across as almost condescending toward Jax (to me), but put forth the the idea that “The Law of Attractions” was the basic ‘law’ all the universe worked by…
…which is just wrong, imo. Especially when you start trying to toss quantum level interactions and macro forces back and forth… all evidence, experimentation, and derived theory to date shows this as a ‘no no’ to how it all ‘works’.
So, if anything — I suppose my ‘conflict’ was with you… not with Jax.
Fun thing about Jax — we can toss terms and ideas about and — for the most part, I ‘get’ her and… when I finally run around the shed a few times and get my terms and words right… I *think* she sees where I am coming from.
We interact. We discuss. I may be wrong — but I don’t think I’ve ever had a conflict with Jax. (Help me out here, Jax — especially if I am way blind to what’s going on!)
“Up pops Robert. Radiating the same emotionally insecure essence about himself and, what does he proceed to do? He decides he’s going to conflict. ”
Up pops?
I’ve been popping on here and on another forum where Jax knows me… for some time now. You make it sound like I came out of left field… (my filtered impression again)
And, hey… I’m more than willing to admit I probably have insecurity issues! It’s no revelation. It’s sort of like the newspaper horoscopes; ‘insecurities’ is a label that can be stuck on just about anybody. So, it fits me as much as anybody.
“AT THAT POINT, Robert made his intentions known. And those intentions weren’t anything remotely associated with Understanding. Not in the having, not in the giving or not in the receiving. For all Robert wanted out of it, was to ‘win’ something.”
One can not Understand until a mutually agreed upon baseline of concepts, ideas, words, terms, labels — can be arrived at. Discussion brings that about.
As I ‘understand’ it — Understanding comes when I can use the proper words to make ‘the picture in my head’ be the same picture she is trying to make in her head… and vice versa. That is not conflict.. .that is dialogue; the exchange of information, ideas, mis-understandings… until all the ‘mis’-es are uncovered, etc.
“Suck energy from you and anyone else he could manage to draw into his game. Your radiance of temporarily feeling ‘weak’ and ‘insecure’ drew him in, like a moth to a flame. For being insecure himself, the only way he gets to feel ‘empowered’ is by ‘winning’ fights. Playing the illusionary game of taking energy from others. Without conflict he can’t feed.”
Okay, my jaw dropped on this one…
This is the first time in my LIFE I have ever been accused of being an energy vampire. :/ I suppose if one views all exchanges as ‘give and take’… then someone gives and someone takes… so I suppose, in a rough way, it can be construed as such.
Hey Jax… if I bogarted some of your enegy… let me know.. I’ll beam a surplus back at ya above and beyond what I’ve been tossing to you and Carrie these last few months.
“The Law of Attraction. Negative fields (your feelings of insecurity) attracts negative poles (insecure robert)”
lol
Her near daily blog attracted me! I came from another tow other forums (and private IMs) to read her posts to understand her views; to see how she is doing in her quest for ’self’ and ’self discovery’; to find out how her mate is doing; to see where her own investigations into ‘inside and outside’ are taking her. I learn as much ‘through’ her writings as I do from reading and my own practices.
I also sometimes poke a dull stick at her when she’s being especially prickly.. sometimes so she has someone other than ‘herself’ to get angry at. I sometimes tease her…. just a weee bit… because she’s a lot further along on her path than I am.. and it’s not cool for a junior explorer to piss off the more senior staff.
“I guess I’m the dweeb in all this, for I imagined you truly were seeking Understanding and that means a comprehension of the Heart. It’s a knowing, not just a thinking. And it has been towards that goal, that I have based my responses.”
Naw.. not a dweeb. I’ll toss out a guess and hazard we’ve all “mind filtered” a little more than is really ‘there’ in the posts.
Like I said, most of the time I can agree with your observations and interchanges with Jax.
This time, it just didn’t ‘feel’ right when I read/re-read it.
After that, it was all me and Jax rolling in the dictionary and physics books ‘dirt’ at the playground trying to show each other who knew more. Hey, I admit it… she’s a sharp cookie… and I should KNOW better than to toss my undergrad and private researches/work experience against a post grad physics major!!!
Thankfully, Jax has been pretty gentle about not thwapping me upside the head tooooo hard… so I don’t lose any more marbles than I already have behind the couch cushions.
1 August 2007 at 23:09
*head hurting* lol ok, not really. But I’m not used to so much discussion on my blog, it’s so crazy! lol
Ok, first, I think we’re all looking at the same thing from very different levels, which is leading to a whole lot of things not quite meshing. And that’s ok. I figured from the get go that Sue Ann was looking at this at a level I wasn’t prepared to look at, which is why I haven’t delved too far into her posts yet. Basically, I need to return to some textbooks first and refresh my memory before I even attempt it.
And Rob, do you want to know why i never go too hard on the physics? Because my own understanding is so limited. Is it a bit more than your’s? Probably much of the time, but it’s not so much more than I could possibly get all power trippy on you. Especially when delving into areas I haven’t spent much time thinking about. And most of our discussions have been on the general physics level, trying to get on the same page.
I think that’s what much of the discussion has been, trying to make 3 different perspectives meet somewhere…hell, anywhere! lol Not to mention, it often takes me a while to really figure out what Sue Ann has been trying to say. It can take me longer to reach than level than to reach a standard physics level. A bit of mental gymnastics going on there, and I suck at gymnastics. (I can’t even do a cartwheel)
So, I’m not saying that anyone is right or wrong, simply that I don’t know at this point in my understanding. And for once in my life, I’m trying to reach my own understanding. So, if it doesn’t resonate after a little thinking, I file it away for later use. And it will come back if it’s useful. It’ll pop up randomly with a completely different understanding. And then I’ll be referencing back to this blog post and laughing. lol