posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 10:49 AM
Originally posted by CosmicEgg
We are all free to believe as we see fit. We all see the world differently. There is no single, solitary truth. All things are true, and they are
equally false, if you choose to see things that way. We all choose our perceptions. They are not thrust upon us. We accept them for our own
I choose to believe (and yes, to know) that water is sentient. I know this too about all the elements. I have spent a lot of time in meditation
where a lot of things have been shown to me. I've been to a lot of places that work entirely differently than they do here. I see things
differently here than many people do, but many see things similarly to my way. This is fine too. It really doesn't matter though. I know what I
know. No practitioner of religion or science is going to tell me I'm wrong, that it's not possible. I know it is and that's that. I'm sure I
will go many places still where things are still different from the myriad worlds I've visited to date.
The point is that this post was to encourage others to actively change the environment with their loving thoughts, to help heal our Mother Earth with
our pure love for her. This post is about love, not "science". Please stop trying to deflate our love. Science has done enough damage.
I do appreciate the positive voice of your reply (a tone that was obviously missing in the previous reply, hence my positive feeling)...
...except for that last statement....
Let's do some calculus: what has been more damaging? The efforts of science (as a sociologist I'm fully willing to accept that some individual
scientists did terrible things), or the effects of "believers" who killed whole peoples for not reading the right book?
As I stated on other occasions, if one wants to believe? Fine, go ahead, just don't confuse the mental space of believers with the mental space of
careful reasoning, observing, experimenting, coming to conclusions and being happy as that conclusion over time is being rejected. That's the nature
of science, and to me, that's the best way to approach our external reality, with all its uncertainties and marvels.
I do agree that this debate has taken another direction. The OP's intention probably (I can only assume, I don't KNOW nor BELIEVE) was to spread the
invitation of Emoto. Unfortunately s/he added a statement, pretending the claim of Emoto being proven. That was a false statement. So that's what I
mentioned. The rest happened...