The marriage of quantum physics and meta physics...

I am a firm believer that it will be a marriage of all things on earth that will show the true meaning of life. That somehow God and science must be both parts of a whole. God can be entirely subjective and mean many things. This does not change the fact that it must be both or both wouldn't exist.

I like to try and apply quantum knowing to the process that makes tarot cards work for instance. I welcome all opinions regarding this. This could also apply to clairvoyance perhaps.

I like to apply super positioning to the ability to see into the future. To things like dejaview. To the ability to envision the many possible outcomes before a decision is reached. So many applications...

I would like to have a scientific explanation of the processes at work for all meta physics.

This could be a fun discussion...maybe?

I view Tarot, rune casting, and other divination activities as something akin to Rorshach tests. They pull from our subconscious what conscious, mindful, intentional methods cannot. They are general, referencing universal archetypes. When we look at the result, something within us answers, aligning our specific needs and circumstances to the general forms presented. They are thus very powerful, but not in the superficial sense that many people ascribe to them.

who should object to our quest for truth within the intuitive spectrum which appears to be the domain of women?

personally, i have come to understand that associations from rorschach pics tend to be a limited tool for client assessment when used by "conservative"-type psychiatry / psychology.

on the other hand, tarot cards etc., and even astrology, are reference systems no different IN VALUE than quantum physics for higher educated theorists.

imho.
here's a piece of artwork i would search for in expressing an intuitive intercultural approach to living with nature as inalienable part of it.

Hi you lovely brainy people...

A few years ago I was driving truck for a company where I was the only woman. A year into the job it was absolutely great. No reason to suspect trouble. In my cards there started to show up trouble at work. This went on for a few months and I must admit it made me question the validity of the whole thing. Turns out...the cards were right. I was canned unfairly. It was my inability to get it, not the cards. I very rarely ever ask a direct question, my moto is as the cards are my friends and I value their opinion, what in their opinion should I be concentrating on at the moment....

Quantum physics proves the fact they work while it has always been known to work and just explained in a language vastly different than science. They compliment each other completely. IMO...

Blue eyes, baby's got blue eyes...

Perhaps tarot cards are able to pick up through quantum knowing your state of mind and through super positioning are able to see multiple and then likely outcomes.

now who's the crazy one here?

I agree with you L.O., if you cannot breach the mind matter gap tarot, runes or even religion are useless.

Meta and quantum physics are both equally important. They are speaking about the same thing. Contrary to belief, I think a monk through meditation is making practical use of what meta and quantum speak of. It is science that sits in the realm of spirituality. A monk needs no faith to believe as he already knows. A scientist must have faith as there is so much he doesn't know but must believe exists.

yes, absolutely!

yet do they communicate effectively with each other or allow a "creation" entirely random coming from over-ambitious isolationist tendencies?

btw, what kind of music do you like best, Pretty?

Perhaps through the recent explosion of the internet as a way of communication, a gathering of introverted minds as never before are going to start bridging the gap.
That secular isolationist ideas are going to evolve and what at current can be described as random enlightenment between the various factions and beliefs will become more in tune as access and unity prevail.

Music...
I can get very lost in any kind of non-exuberant classical music, the sexy quiet crooning of Sade, the eclectic and alto musings of Radiohead, at times I'm right into the peace love-ins of the 60s and at others the dark whining of Alice in Chains and Nine Inch Nails.
I absolutely love most Celtic and fiddle music...!
The Gregorian Chant has it going on too.

From looking through the many links you post, you too have a varied taste for music...
Who in particular do you like?

you seem to retain an optimism about the merging and blending of mental activities via internet communication ~~~~ something i admire as a typically resilient american spirit, which in 'old europe' appears subject to a mix of deflective opposition and massive "deconstruction" .... seems as if younger minds are lazy, spoilt and cynical and finding that funny.

music: it just so happened that the circumstances into which i was born "demanded" (?) my being primarily an auditive type person contrary to a vast majority of visual types.

exuberant baroque music to me is an anti-depressant i probably need more than others not so dependant on "balancing" talents and available support of self-expression in gainful employment and useful contribution to all earth.

it's really interesting to consider music as therapy (and its availability "here and now" definitely a blessing for which i feel much appreciation and gratitude to those making it so possible).

i feel a strong need to speak my mind and this not being taken as ungrateful, au contraire....



greetings across the ocean!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oA2-TBWdQ8&feature=related

like lightsun, let me ask this once:
did you know today is the day of st. blaise, the rc saint associated most with healing?

you seem to retain an optimism about the merging and blending of mental activities via internet communication ~~~~ something i admire as a typically resilient american spirit, which in 'old europe' appears subject to a mix of deflective opposition and massive "deconstruction" .... seems as if younger minds are lazy, spoilt and cynical and finding that funny.

True the words eternal optimist apply. It was a hard won optimism gained through the study of self with structures like astrology, numerology, animal totem, ancestral culture, third eye studies and seclusion, exclusion and rejection.


it just so happened that the circumstances into which i was born "demanded" (?) my being primarily an auditive type person contrary to a vast majority of visual types.

Well, you seem to have made a good deal out of your hardship. A most eloquent speaker and multi-lingual too no? Not only that but you did not accept the limitation and have learned to express yourself fluently with imagery. An important past you had.

and what can i do for you whose true noblesse would oblige me more than my own country gradually discarding, not only dismissing, any warrior spirit?


anyway, did you know that here we are in the midst of carnival season. they call it the 5th season of the year, and southerners like me find that 5th season appears to be all year round.

p.s. the question is funny enough. do i have to believe in ego being all there is to life?

Lavender Orchid, there is nothing that you could say that will deter me from listening. Even if I don't like it. I do like you. Speak away in any form you choose, I enjoy your expression and welcome it.

yeah, and vice versa with me!

A chest of costumes to try on and only an ego to be found? How boring... I want to try different things on, don't you?

Carnival season, what a lovely thing. Do you participate in any particular way?

Thank-you for accepting me too

not really.
for one, there's too much alcohol consumption involved.

remember carnival originally was a pagan ritual \!! to drive winter away. is still commemorated in the far southwest of germany and across the border regions of switzerland (the olden alemannia).

carnival has developed in the (catholic) rhine land and is to this day organized by something like lodges in old cities like mainz, cologne and düsseldorf, with sessions for mocking government politics as well as dumb folks' habits (but of course always excusing them with a hoodwink), and during the last week (ending with mardi gras) street parades.

what i like is again bands and songs like this one from cologne:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz2xHI97TKo

btw. dang! can't compete with wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival




\!! p.s. i'm not really sure if this can "seriously" relate to quantums, or physiques, or meta states above the navel region.

Prettybirds wrote:

Meta and quantum physics are both equally important. They are speaking about the same thing. Contrary to belief, I think a monk through meditation is making practical use of what meta and quantum speak of. It is science that sits in the realm of spirituality. A monk needs no faith to believe as he already knows. A scientist must have faith as there is so much he doesn't know but must believe exists.

While I have long thought of science and spirituality as two sides of the same coin, I am not sure I agree with the highlighted. To me, it seems reversed. Can you elaborate? Perhaps I have not correctly understood.

Hi Romana

A science minded person garners much resilience in life from knowing that there is much from life, this world and the universe that they do not understand and want to. To a scientist, proof is what they need. Proof in tangible ethical means. Because this inability to just believe in another persons opinion or mere physical acknowledgement the quest for knowledge never ends within this group, these people have the potential to surpass most other groups socially, ethically and spiritually for ever as there is no beginning and no end. Just always more and more. Perhaps there is a beginning and an end but till the proof is in the pudding...no complacency. Continual evolution, the true meaning of life. Boundaries that are expected to broaden with much thought and effort. A wonderful, wonderful nessecity.

A God fearing/believing type has both a beginning and an end, both created by a God as only a few humans can translate. Just full of boundaries and blind faith, complacency. Quite happy to not need to know. Spiritually and ethically stunted. ( please forgive me if this sounds awfully mean, I don't feel mean about it ).

Eastern and nature based philosophies seem to be able to surpass the mind matter gap between science and God but they to are quite happy to not learn the science behind what they accomplish as well as being happy to ultimately remain secondary to a creator/creators of some type. More complacency and boundaries.

Birds

It sounds, then, that a monk needs no knowledge because he already has faith, while a scientist needs no faith as she is continually feedling her questions with knowledge. I cannot speak for monks or others whose vocations center on the spiritual, but the dichotomy is complicated by the fact that many if not most scientists I know are also believers of one spiritual path or another, myself included. Yes, we are eternal and insatiable questioners, but we recognize that some questions lend themselves to scientific analysis resulting in proof or disproof, while others do not. Unless we are delusional, we will try to apply the right method to the job.

Did my mother love me? Can I prove it? Did I feel the need to prove it? My life was filled with evidence, tangible and intangible, that she did. This is hardly conclusive scientific proof, yet I accepted it all of my life. As a scientist, I can thus quite readily believe in another person's opinion or assertion, if it is on a matter where such is valid. If Lightsun tells me his favorite painter is Rubens, why would I question this? I may have a completely contradictory opinion, which would be equally valid given the subjective nature of the question.

(P.S. You are the only person I have ever seen assert that scientifically minded people have the potential to surpass other groups socially. Usually we are told quite the opposite.)

Hi Romana,

My question would be this. What is the nature of a relationship between a scientist and a God?
Does he, like the 'Naked Archeaologist', state that even though the plagues are attributable to science it was likely God who manipulated the earth to make them happen? I find that to be such an interesting statement.
A monk has all the knowledge of a scientist without the need for complicated language and visual proof. His knowledge is instinctual, wordless almost. He understood mind over matter a long time ago, multi dimensions and time as well. Science on the other hand because of a lack of 'scientifical proof' still wants to play the skeptical card while at the same time striving to prove the monk true.
I love it....both sides. I am the monk who needs to be a scientist because I see my own limitations and choose to raise them. I am a true scientist, I will not believe or disbeliee in any God until its proven or not.

What is scientific proof of love? Proof of love is measured by the feeling you are left with as a result of interaction with another individual.

2 individuals, one from a warm loving household and the other from a cold austere if not violent household. Both people feeling that their mothers loved them albiet for very different reasons. Hook them up to a lie detector and ask both if they feel that their mother loved them. It would read psitive and give you chemical proof that the love existed. It is a chemical truth IMO.

One very long reaching social truth large enough to challenge an entire nation of people to seek to rewrite a social custom built on religious principle...


Muslim men and women are no longer satisfied to marry close relatives and/or have multitudes of children. It is the scientific proof of what happens genetically to us being too closely related that transcended what the mere visual physical proof could not. Science is the stability and strength behind the change.

Prettybirds wrote:

What is scientific proof of love? Proof of love is measured by the feeling you are left with as a result of interaction with another individual.

2 individuals, one from a warm loving household and the other from a cold austere if not violent household. Both people feeling that their mothers loved them albiet for very different reasons. Hook them up to a lie detector and ask both if they feel that their mother loved them. It would read psitive and give you chemical proof that the love existed. It is a chemical truth IMO.

There is no scientific proof of love, nor do we need one. Love is something felt, not proven. It is our feeling that leads to the positive lie detector results, and whatever happens chemically in the brain when we think of that love. It is not love itself, or at least not love alone, that causes these results. Plenty of people honestly believe someone loves them when they in fact do not; or conversely, fail to recognize the love that someone does have for them. The physical data from such subjects would correspond to their perception, not the actual absence or presence of love.

Similarly, social custom and religious principle are not the right tools for determining the desirability of marrying near relations or bearing many children. Analyzing a question or issue using the wrong methods makes about as much sense as cleaning your shoes in the dishwasher.