Originally posted by MadGreebo
Any one seen a video called 'what the bleep do we know?!' ?? Watch it, and then see if reality is as solid as you think it is.
A brief content description... Thoughts affect every thing, the viewer can change the content of his own world[...]
What's totally awesome about this idea, is that I've seen it realized from two different perspectives: scientific and
Before coming to ATS, I hung around the Astral Pulse forums for a long while, and read up on the work of a member there following Monroe: Frank
Kepple. He, and maybe a couple other members/projectors by now, came to the conclusion that reality as we know it consists only of energy that exists
, collectively, have it to exist in the fashion that it does.
Dreams are the same idea, but are only subject to the manifestations of one individual. (Anyone here every lucid dream? You can get some FREAKISHLY
realistic stuff going on; can't tell the difference, and you can have manifested anything you want, though your subconscious may still exert a lot of
undesired influence if you're not experienced enough to avoid that.)
The concepts got into some deep stuff and I'm still not clear on some issues, dealing with subjective interpretations of this energy and how they
relate to the "objective" interpretations of everyone else.
For example, if Jesus walked on water, would everyone else be able to see it, or would he just be allowing himself to interpret what he was doing as
walking on water (a very self-convincing game of pretend)?
I'm led to believe that the "change" in the systems "rules" would be witnessed by everyone
, as it would be an actual change in the
energies that EVERYONE is picking up on, and thus Jesus very well could have done all those things he was rumored to, simply because he had broken the
"system" (and likely still has it broken
). I use Jesus here as just as example. Did he himself not say that everything he could do, others could
do, and more?
And then science, through quantum physics and etc., comes to a very similar conclusion, if not the exact same conclusion
(besides a few details
each version may have that the other does not, but then again I'm not as familiar with these ideas as I am with Kepple's "astral" models).
Ah..... really nice stuff to get into. I love it.
[edit on 21-2-2006 by bsbray11]