It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

page: 39
17
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Perhaps, at some point in time, the technique of ridicule will be dropped, and a discussion of meditation as a tool for scientific inquiry can ensue. (That's the topic of the thread.)

That would be nice.


Patience is a virtue they say.




posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Perhaps, at some point in time, the technique of ridicule will be dropped, and a discussion of meditation as a tool for scientific inquiry can ensue. (That's the topic of the thread.)
If I was making a thread about a delegate program, I'd probably have "delegate program" somewhere in the thread title.

If I was making a thread about meditation, I'd probably have the word "meditation" somewhere in the title.

Does that make me silly?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Your reply is ridiculous.

All you had to do is read the OP.

Arbitrageur,

You have successfully derailed this thread.

I was forced to get into a heated, nasty science debate because someone I respect was ridiculed and that doesn't sit well with me.

I have documented Haramein's work to the best of my ability and the use of meditation is apparently not going to be discussed, so I would appreciate the thread being allowed to die peacefully.

That would be nice.






posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Perhaps, at some point in time, the technique of ridicule will be dropped, and a discussion of meditation as a tool for scientific inquiry can ensue. (That's the topic of the thread.)

That would be nice.

I'd be happy to discuss meditation as a tool for scientific enquiry. I think that's a great subject.

They have many things in common when practised profoundly. In particular, both concern themselves with developing an awareness of reality that transcends the views or opinions or prejudices or pre-existing story-lines of the individual practising them.

If a scientist or a meditator is holding to a view that is at odds with the reality that they become aware of, the view must be at least softened or modified by the experience, if not abandoned altogether.

In both cases, if one is holding too tightly to a view that is at odds with reality, one will subconsciously filter reality to fit the view, and remain unaware that this is happening. This would be a shame, as it drives a barrier between our consciousness and reality itself. This is a real danger, and it makes true science and meditation into challenging disciplines.

A big question in both science and meditation is this:

Given that it's a human trait to subconsciously filter reality to fit one's views, and have absolutely no awareness of it, what is the best way to ensure that as little of this is going on as possible?

Mary, what do you think?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
. . . what is the best way to ensure that as little of this is going on as possible?


It cannot be ensured by anyone for anyone else. Each individual has to take it upon him/herself to be honest.

Obviously, neither science nor meditation does anyone any good, if the scientist or the meditator is fooling him/herself.

~~~~~~~~~~~

What I'm interested in regarding meditation for work in science is the possibility that there is information to be acquired through meditation that is not available through regular thinking and scientific experimentation and analysis.

You have the left and right brain and then there is the pineal gland. I'm wondering whether the pineal gland is a receiver of infomation/wisdom during meditation.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Each individual has to take it upon him/herself to be honest.

Obviously, neither science nor meditation does anyone any good, if the scientist or the meditator is fooling him/herself.


Exactly - but how should we best endeavour to reduce how much each of us is fooling ourselves? I think it's something that should be treated as vital. Being 'honest' won't work if we don't know we're fooling ourselves. So what can be done?


What I'm interested in regarding meditation for work in science is the possibility that there is information to be acquired through meditation that is not available through regular thinking and scientific experimentation and analysis.

You have the left and right brain and then there is the pineal gland. I'm wondering whether the pineal gland is a receiver of infomation/wisdom during meditation.

I agree, there is a lot of wisdom that is not available through regular thinking and scientific experimentation, and meditation can provide insight into many things.

But if it's information regarding something that can be objectively checked, then surely it would be wrong not to do that.

If you acquire information through meditation that there is a live dinosaur in your garden, it would be silly to accept that without looking out of the window. And even sillier to cling to it after having looked out of the window and seen that there were no dinosaurs.

The same is true for scientific information. If you receive information from your meditation that someone's theory that the mass of a proton is a billion tonnes is correct, and you don't bother to look at protons and see what their mass is, then you'd be equally silly. And probably subjected to ridicule by people who look at protons. I'd say that was a pretty clear indication that something wasn't right.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
Exactly - but how should we best endeavour to reduce how much each of us is fooling ourselves? I think it's something that should be treated as vital. Being 'honest' won't work if we don't know we're fooling ourselves. So what can be done?


Off topic. You're trying to steer the thread away from the topic at hand, specifically meditation as a process, and back into your rant against Mr. Haramein, aren't you?

~~~~~~

It's clear that you're not interested in meditation in any other way than as a pretext to try to win your argument that a person is a fraud because you don't understand, or agree, with his physics theory.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Off topic. You're trying to steer the thread away from the topic at hand, specifically meditation as a process, and back into your rant against Mr. Haramein, aren't you?
Huh? What is the title of this thread in your universe?

I am interested in meditation, actually. That's why I'm asking a vital question related to the apprehension of reality. You expressed a desire to discuss "meditation as a tool for scientific inquiry." I'm asking a question that is common to both meditation and science as methods of insight into the nature of reality.

If you don't have much to say on the question of trying to ensure one's meditation practice does not lose contact from reality, that's fine. I guess it's not everyone's first priority.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
Huh? What is the title of this thread in your universe?


You're making absolutely no sense.


Perhaps that's because you're grasping at straws, trying to seem like you're having a legitimate discussion.


Originally posted by Bobathon
If you don't have much to say on the question of trying to ensure one's meditation practice does not lose contact from reality, that's fine.


No, what you're trying to interject is a re-hash of another topic.

What a tiresome exchange.

Let's end it.




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Bobathon
Huh? What is the title of this thread in your universe?


You're making absolutely no sense.

Let me help you. I mentioned Haramein. You said it was off-topic for the subject of meditation. I pointed to the title of this thread, which is about Haramein and not meditation.

I was ON topic, I was responding directly to what you were saying, and I was raising a vital question. But never mind, it clearly didn't go to plan for you. Take care.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You have the left and right brain and then there is the pineal gland. I'm wondering whether the pineal gland is a receiver of infomation/wisdom during meditation.


I just read a passage on the website "Free Energy and Free Thinking" that made me remember this thread because of the term "pineal gland."

It is a definition of a term in the glossary for the website. The term sounds like it originates with Walter Russell:


Still Magnetic Light

The all light of the Creator which is invisible, it centers wave-fields and bounds them in planes of stillness. It’s the blinding white light, which no eyes can see. Illuminates alone can see that Light through their centers of Consciousness located in their Pineal Gland. God’s White Mind-Light is dark to man’s senses because it is still. Man’s senses cannot perceive absolute stillness for this reason it is invisible.


I'm thinking that it may be that the truth about the universe cannot be discerned by science with its equipment used in experimentation and by thinking alone. That there is also knowing, which is not centered in the five senses contemplating the material world.



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I just read a passage on the website "Free Energy and Free Thinking" that made me remember this thread because of the term "pineal gland."

It is a definition of a term in the glossary for the website. The term sounds like it originates with Walter Russell:
....
I'm thinking that it may be that the truth about the universe cannot be discerned by science with its equipment used in experimentation and by thinking alone. That there is also knowing, which is not centered in the five senses contemplating the material world.


You are right, Mary. Russell is teaching us that we won't get far in our quest for truth without sex. I quote Russell:


Sex is the controlling cause of both force and motion. Without it, neither could continue.
...
Sex force of that quality in the electromagnetic impulse of thinking which continues one impulse of thinking into the next impulse of thinking.
...
Sex and life and light and intelligence are in and all of things from the beginning.
...
The sex principle if as much a part of the granite rock of bar of iron as it is of man.


I must confess I don't get this one. I shudder to think of iron bars used for sex, but what do I know. But I like the principle according to which instead of hard effort one needs to put into studying physics, my lady and I can control both force and motion right from the center of our bedroom (which is great, by the way, a perfect location for the global control center). It's fascinating that we can control the flight of our spacecraft around planets and towards stars, with a few choice formulae from Kama Sutra. But I digress:


The great hot star called Argo, blazing away at a temperature of thirty thousand degrees, knows sex in its fiery heart, and cannot continue its appearance without it
.

Wow, that guy is on fire!


Sex is an electro-magnetic equalizer of matter in motion


This is deep.


There can be no continuity of idea without sex union


Marie, "continuity of idea" is extremely important. Just keep that in mind.



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


A typical B. response.

What I read of it.

I can't be bothered.

I'm not going to waste my precious time on it.



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm not going to waste my precious time on it.


I'm pretty sure you are extraordinarily busy! Is that because you are occupied with dancing most of the time?

You don't even have time to make a remark regarding the quotes from Mr. Russell, to whom you referred yourself, in a previous post. I'm not sure why you bring up a subject and then run away from it like hell hath no fury. I take it that you found out that you in fact quite disagree with Mr. Russell. It looks like you wised up to the fact that it's nuts to say that Maxwell's equations and relation of matter to energy are explained by some metaphysical and insatiable sexual desire or some other such psychobabble that Russell is musing about.

PS. You don't seem to absorb anything from sources you claim to have read, even when these don't involve math. So if you think Russell got something of value to say, can you explain how a star (as in astronomy) maintains its configuration by relying on sex?


edit on 10-4-2011 by buddhasystem because: adding



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You are right, Mary. Russell is teaching us that we won't get far in our quest for truth without sex. I quote Russell:


Sex is the controlling cause of both force and motion. Without it, neither could continue..


I must confess I don't get this one.
I can't say I get it completely but the biography Mary posted might have a clue. It says he lived in New York and his wife lived in Connecticut. I'm guessing this type of arrangement might induce one to think more about sex since it couldn't be practiced morally with any great frequency given that distance.

But the Dale Pond video Mary posted on page 3 of the Rodin thread also talks about the sexual attributes of inanimate objects and processes. Since English has no gender for inanimate objects it seems kind of strange to me but other languages I've studied do have gender for inanimate objects which I found both odd and interesting. But to discuss this gender of inanimate objects in a "scientific" manner doesn't seem particularly "scientific".

Maybe Russell should have taken Tesla's advice:

peswiki.com...:Walter_Russell

Tesla recognized the wisdom and power of Russells' teaching and urged Russell to lock up his knowledge in a safe for 1,000 years until man was ready for it.
Maybe we're not ready for "star sex" yet. Maybe in another 1000 years? The stork would get a singed beak delivering baby stars so that can't be where baby stars come from! And they have to come from somewhere, right?



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I don't know what you're babbling about, and whatever you're saying about Russell it is certain that you're taking something out of context and making asinine statements about it.

I don't care what you're talking about, and I don't care what you think.



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

I don't know what you're babbling about


at this juncture, I'm not surprised.


and whatever you're saying about Russell it is certain that you're taking something out of context


It was a fairly complete quote from one of the chapters in "Universal". What is the context? Feel free to comment. That burning of stars and the shape of the ice cap on Mars (!) depend on raw sexuality is a pretty stunning statement to fit into any context.


I don't care what you're talking about, and I don't care what you think.


Were this the case, you wouldn't have posted this (yet another) deflection piece.



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But the Dale Pond video Mary posted on page 3 of the Rodin thread also talks about the sexual attributes of inanimate objects and processes.


Oh boy, this is closer to a real mental illness that I had hoped.


But to discuss this gender of inanimate objects in a "scientific" manner doesn't seem particularly "scientific".


We need to ask Rodin. Or Haramein. What gender is his "black hole"?



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
We need to ask Rodin. Or Haramein. What gender is his "black hole"?
According to Keely and his follower Dale Pond, I think it would be female:

www.ritualgoddess.com...

Keely believed that positive/male energy is propulsion, expansion, explosion, and radiation. Negative/female energy is implosion, contraction, night side or dark force.

Western science has only focused on the male energy, the idea that you need to put energy into something to get energy out. This whole line of thought has generated what is now called the “energy crisis.” The female force generates infinite energy always. Keely spent his life attempting to harness “female energy.”
"implosion, contraction, night side or dark force" seem to fit a black hole better than the male energy.

Keely spent his life trying to harness female energy (the Keely motor which never worked without the cheater compressed air lines ran on "female energy"), and Haramein says "We need a female Goddess":

www.myspace.com...

God = 'The structure of a tetrahedron creating a gravitational effect'
God and Secret Societies

God is a representation in cabalistic tradition. This tradition was not to be written or talked about. Only initiates could learn of this knowledge. It was thought to be the nature of God that revealed and if you understood it, you could understand God.

The Jewish numbers are as important as the letters, adding to 72. This is a male God, we're missing half of the equation. We need a female Goddess which doubles the number to 144, which is the number of ascension in Revelation.
That's Haramein's attribution of gender to what's apparently a polytheistic matched pair of male God and Female Goddess of 72 each giving the 144 tetrahedron structure which creates the gravitational effect.

This must be the piece of the puzzle my professor was missing when he said he didn't completely understand the origin of gravity. He never mentioned 144 so I don't think he even considered that was the answer, though this contradicts Rodin's answer of 9. Maybe somebody can explain the discrepancy by quoting somebody who's been dead for a hundred years so we can see the "big picture" pattern.

Haramein sees the black hole as a source of energy. At the beginning of his presentation at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library (PART 2) at that link, he says that all gaseous planets in our solar system output 70-80% more energy than they receive from the sun which scientists can't explain. And he says the reason is they all have a black hole, that's internal heat source. So at least in that part of his theory he's consistent with the other guys who say a female energy puts out more energy than it takes in, though I never heard him explain the exact mechanism by which the black hole acts as an internal heat source.

But when he says scientists can't explain the internal heat source, he's not well informed, it's explained here without a black hole: science.jrank.org...



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Perhaps, at some point in time, the technique of ridicule will be dropped, and a discussion of meditation as a tool for scientific inquiry can ensue. (That's the topic of the thread.)


90% of the thread = ridicule
10% of the thread = honest discussion

Hope springs eternal. I'll keep checking from time to time.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join