Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Thanks. There seems to be a trend lately to cite this experiment as the philosophical grease for all kinds of metaphysical claims. I tend not to see
the link between the weirdness observed in the experiment and the metaphysical claims. Where is the link?
i didnt see a reply yet, and i only speak for myself. However, you seem to be genuinely curious about anothers perspective, as well as skeptical. i
feel we should be both whether we agree with the proposed ideas/contexts or not. However, i am not so sure how the double slit experiment is being
worked into this either, so ill just speak on the other things.
Thanks again. I have checked into him and unfortunately he's openly admitted to as much as fraud regarding his water experiments. That aside, his
experiments have some inherent flaws and no reasonable conclusions should be drawn from them.
i had immediate questions when Dr. Emoto proposed that different genres of music can affect water negatively/positively. This is a subjective notion,
and shouldnt have ever been a part of the claim beyond the frequencies in the music itself. His experiments, as you say, had some serious flaws to
them that made me question the entire process, as well as agenda.
There could be something to it and perhaps science can find something to it, but first it must stand up to some basic scrutiny even if just from an
ATS skeptic. Anyway, thanks for the pointers and polite discourse... dealing with skeptics can be tedious, I know.
i dont feel skepticism is inherently bad, in fact, i am in favor of it. It is when it devolves into.. absolute statements instead of curiosity that i
think it turns more into an argument. i feel we have to be skeptical of others views, simply because if we arent, we inherently force too much of our
own bias onto others. Though, the same thing happens when one cant get beyond skepticism of anything that differs slightly from their current view.
It is not relevant (or shouldnt be), but you have earned a good amount of respect from me in these posts.
For me, i have to explore and find actual mechanics behind "how things work." i find that this is a continuous process, rather than something that
turns up "answers."
Let me explain, as briefly as i can, why i think things like this have an actual effect, but only
on truly meaningful scales if we also base
our actions in them as well as "send" them out. It took looking at a lot of things differently for me personally, from the base up.
The basis is the idea of systems within systems. Nothing new, so i wont go into it
However, i feel this notion applies specifically to EM fields
as well. It is a field that hasnt had much research beyond magnetic mitigation (mostly). So, we see such fields present around our planet, our solar
system, and our galaxy, but i also feel this scales down as well, including the human body and smaller. Since we are talking about a specific context
in this thread, ill limit it to that. Historically, cultures would have had to look at it through their own context (as we do), and this has been
understood as things like "auras," "chakras," etc. The aura is seen as the overall "magnetosphere" of the human body, and the "chakras" are seen as
essentially areas of subtle EM pooling from the electro-chemical pulses that result from the human body (perhaps something similar to the triangles of
energy on our planet [bermuda, etc] though i do not really know beyond a hypothesis).
From my subjective perspective, the two parts of our "body" are seen as the observer and the action. The observer being based in the subtle magnetic
fields created by the physical movement of the body on many levels (the action). For me, a specific note must be made that the mind and thoughts are
a part of the perspective and not
the base. As i personally explored this over the years, i felt the sensation of the actual movement of such
things "felt" exactly the same as the base
of love, respect, compassion, etc. It was perceived that those emotions happened within the larger
base. i also noticed that the "foundation" of my perspective wasnt really based in anything specifcally, but more just in the fleeting thoughts in my
mind. If we are to keep with the systems within systems model, i would compare this to the asteroid field in our solar system, compared to a planet
or a star. So, i felt if i were to actually build my perspective with a foundation based in the actual movement itself, that true growth would occur
instead of the self-cancelling duality that seems inherent in the physically-based mind. So, instead of understanding the observer/action
relationship as either/or (as in the mind), it is perceived as simultaneous.
So when one sends out these movements, even if only understood as emotions, it is still making some movement on the larger scale of things. As you
and others say though, it is just
as important to also base our action in the same consistency as well. So, it is done simultaneously. "As we
breath, we think, and as we think we breathe. But we dont breathe about thinking and shouldnt think about breathing." i like saying it differently,
but thats how i first heard it
There is a lot to say on the subject, but basically, when one sends these things out, the reason it can make an actual effect in the "action" is
because these emotions are based in something that is a larger encompassing sort of movement. When we also base our actions in the same, continuously
and simultaneously, then movement (or waves/ripples) are made amongst all possible avenues of growth.
Sorry, O13, if that was too far off topic or you see it completely differently. In the end, i feel the variety is what we explore. i just felt that
traditionaldrummer deserved an honest response from someone that was willing to go a bit more in depth in how they see things.
17-6-2011 by sinohptik because: typos, clarification