Rationale for the Reason

[Sacredstar]

RATIONALE FOR THE REASON
By Kim

The state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance. When humanity does not live in harmony with the natural laws of the universe, the energy that manifests attracts negativity bio-electromagnetically, which in turn creates chaos. Universal energy is a relationship and two-way communication system, e.g. when speaking on the phone it takes two to have a conversation, it is the same with metaphysics the interaction works both ways, another analogy ‘what you do to others you do to the self.’ This is the golden rule, and the Science of Being, that is buried amongst the wisdom of every religion and philosophy of the great and ancient indigenous peoples. Yet man is only now becoming a human being. By learning to understand the divine self, in this age of technological advancement and enlightenment, man is learning to appreciate this universe in ways that would have been unimaginable just 50 years ago.

Rationalists see reason as the faculty by which fundamental truths are apprehended. These fundamental truths are the causes, or "reasons", that things exist or happen. Their fundamental truths are based upon previous scientific parameters and, in their view, it is proven. In the 21st century things are changing rapidly as more and more scientists determine that there are metaphysical factors that impact on material existence. Science is going through a metamorphosis due to its growing relationship with these different metaphysical realities. When scientists change their intent and will, so do their perceptions, reason, and understanding.

However rationalists say that the metaphysical universe is subjective and based upon individual experience, and that is a result of irrationality, since it is unknowable beyond the individual experience and unquantifiable in an objective sense.


What does this conjure up in one’s mind? The word “irrational” is very emotive and irrationality comes from thought-led emotion, A rationalist’s view is fixed, and is certainly not based upon positive intent and will, producing the reason for the accusation of irrationality. So the response to rationalists, reductionists, and materialists is this:

Throughout the history of mankind we have made wrong assumptions based on physical matter and scientific evidence. Cellular Biologist, Professor Bruce Lipton said “For almost fifty years we have held the illusion that our health and fate were pre-programmed in our genes, a concept referred to as genetic determinacy. Cellular biologists now recognise that the environment, the external universe and our internal physiology, and more importantly, our perception of the environment, directly controls the activity of our genes. The quantum physics behind these mechanisms provide insight into the communication channels that link the mind-body duality. An awareness of how vibrational signatures and resonance impact molecular communication constitutes a master key that unlocks a mechanism by which our thoughts, attitudes and beliefs create the conditions of our body and the external world. This knowledge can be employed to actively redefine our physical and emotional well-being.”

Until Geiger came along we didn't know that radiation existed, but it was always there and we were always affected by it. It was the invention of the achromatic microscope in 1830 by Joseph Jackson Lister that enabled his son to write his paper on antiseptic surgery. From this moment on we had proof that reality also exists in the invisible. Radio and televisions sets are also detecting and processing invisible energy frequencies. Scientists at the cutting edge now accept that everything is an energy field, operating at different frequencies, some even embrace the different dimensions. Some scientists and rationalists are still trying to fit some metaphysical concepts into old models due to previous perceptions, rationality, and reason. This just will not work in many cases; an example of this is remote viewing used by the CIA, Russian and Indian intelligence.

Through experience and research, we know that as a person changes their consciousness, their perceptions, and then their reality, also changes. Intelligence agencies, know that remote viewing works from the evidence of their experience, and they appear to care less about how it works, as long as it does! It’s quite incredible that government intelligence agencies are the leading supporters of metaphysical reality.

Now the rationalist wouldn’t try a healing treatment through the use of remote viewing, because it doesn’t fit into an existing proven scientific model. The intelligence agencies have utilised remote viewing, for in excess of twenty years, and the scientists are now drawn to substantiate the metaphysical reality through reasoning. Once again, a two-way interaction with the universe.

I predict that due to the change of consciousness, intent and will, the approaching years will bring us completely new models, and understanding of the fundamentals of the cosmos. Intent is the will that creates the reason, reason then creates the thought and the reasoning. So then in consciousness is the intent/will human or divine for the rationalist? The divine dichotomy!

To the metaphysician, healer, and cutting edge scientist, divine intent is the will-to-good of harmony – the harmonic concordance of the universe; otherwise known as the symphony of creation, which emerges with a vibration of energetic correspondence, patterns, cycles, and spheres of existence, in addition to different dimensional reality and consciousnesses.

The first principles of the design and architectural blue print gives every energy a reason for being, each aspect is interrelated and interdependent. To live in harmonic relationship with the energy of all creation, one needs to have a positive balance in one’s own life. Positive feelings are harmonically compatible with the universe and keep the universe and your being in balance energetically. Positivity also creates an improved design and a higher state of consciousness due to the bio-electromagnetics of intent and will. It is the first cause and part of the natural law of the first cause and effect.

Matter is the effect of spiritual laws, and these natural laws self-regulate the nature of being. Physical matter also impacts on the original cause and first principles, and this we witness in the response from mother earth, who responds to its people who are creating the disharmony, again the two way interaction.

We are passing through one of the great natural transitional periods in the history of human kind. We are laying the foundation for the emergence of a new species of positive human being, at the same time as experiencing massive, chaotic earth changes, some of which the scientists cannot understand, due to a lack of historical records and scientific models!

The divine reason, immanent in nature and in man.

Welcome to the new rationale for the reason!


an article written by Kim alias Sacredstar
inspired 26/12/04

[Vajradhara]

b'shalom Sacredstar,

thank you for the post.

as this is the science section of the forum, i would like to ask you to provide sources for the experiments which you are referencing to draw your conclusions.

for instance, when you state:

The state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance.

i would expect to find some corresponding experimental data that confirms this assertion. do you have such data to provide so that we may investigate your claims?

[Sacredstar]

Dear Vajradhara

Every school of complementary medicine and therapies teach this. From the 5,000 years of Shiatsu and Acupuncture in the east to the 20th century Kinesiology in the West.

I put the article here as it seemed the most appropriate.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

[Sacredstar]

PNI research might be interesting for you to view from a medical standpoint on the mind-body connection. I must admit I do not view these research papers as in CM we work with this reality all the time so we have no need for research due to our experiences and successes with our clients.

The whole purpose of the article above was to demonstrate that some scientific models/research is not available for the reasons stated.

Blessings in abundance

Sacredstar

[Sacredstar]

Dear Vajradhara

You might like this mind-body medicine link it mentions Tibetan Monks

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...34/ai_73537495

blessings

Sacredstar

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Sacredstar,


the connection between mind and body has been well known in our cultures for thousands of years and there is plenty of empirical evidence to support this view, in both the East and West. it is a bit amusing to hear westerners react as if this is some "new" discovery

so that's not really what i'm asking about. on the contrary, i'm asking about some assertions that do not seem to be supported by evidence.

for instance, can you justify your assertions in this paragraph:

Rationalists see reason as the faculty by which fundamental truths are apprehended. These fundamental truths are the causes, or "reasons", that things exist or happen. Their fundamental truths are based upon previous scientific parameters and, in their view, it is proven. In the 21st century things are changing rapidly as more and more scientists determine that there are metaphysical factors that impact on material existence. Science is going through a metamorphosis due to its growing relationship with these different metaphysical realities. When scientists change their intent and will, so do their perceptions, reason, and understanding.


i.e. do you have some evidence to support your assertion that when a scientists changes their intent and well, their perceptions, reason and understanding also change?

do you have some evidence to support your assertion that rationalists, which i am, only view reason as the proper method of ascertaining truth propositions?

[Sacredstar]

Dear Vajradhara

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the connection between mind and body has been well known in our cultures for thousands of years and there is plenty of empirical evidence to support this view, in both the East and West. it is a bit amusing to hear westerners react as if this is some "new" discovery

Well I guess when you say Westerners you mean most people? I have certainly embraced this view for more years then I wish to remember.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

do you have some evidence to support your assertion that when a scientists changes their intent and will, their perceptions, reason and understanding also change?

Yes and also the outcome of the experiements. Professior William Tiller www.tillerfoundation.com did the research on scientists intent changing the outcome of scientific experiements.

I also have research on work that I did with underprivileged families where by them changing their thoughts, beliefs and perceptions by changing their will and intent they changed their reason, understanding and physical reality. But the report costs £65.00.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

do you have some evidence to support your assertion that rationalists, which i am, only view reason as the proper method of ascertaining truth propositions?

Your questions on this thread are the evidence big smiles!

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Sacredstar,

thank you for the post

Originally Posted by Sacredstar

Well I guess when you say Westerners you mean most people? I have certainly embraced this view for more years then I wish to remember.

no, i mean people from the West, not the East. which is, by the by, where "most" people live.

actually, to be a bit specific, i really mean within the paradigm of Greek philosophical thought, which is the foundation of Western rationalism and the scientific method and all sorts of other neat things. as, quite clearly, you can be a western person and not be trapped within the Greek philosophical models.

Yes and also the outcome of the experiements. Professior William Tiller www.tillerfoundation.com did the research on scientists intent changing the outcome of scientific experiements.

thanks for the link, i'll check it out.

I also have research on work that I did with underprivileged families where by them changing their thoughts, beliefs and perceptions by changing their will and intent they changed their reason, understanding and physical reality. But the report costs £65.00.

i presume they were not scientists, correct?

nevertheless, this is not a new phenomena by any means. this is the operational understanding of reality that has existed in the Orient (for lack of a better term) for thousands of years. heck, we even have the time scale of the universe correct, and we knew that nearly 5000 years ago

Your questions on this thread are the evidence big smiles!

i'm afraid that my questions are not, in fact, evidence of any particular thing. evidence, as you well know, in the scientific field is only derived through a methological process wherein the results of the experiment are verified in repeated tests and then peer reviewed to ensure the proper methodologies were followed.

as such, my question is just that. a question.. which, i note, you did not answer

[Sacredstar]

Dear Vajradhara

Your response is not surprising as you say you are a rationalist.

You are correct what I am saying is not new and it was not intended to be. I honour the East and mention the ancient philosophers in the article.

Yes correct the underprivileged families were not scientists but every person is born with the potential to be a scientist, artist, musician, adventurer and inventor.

You said 'as such, my question is just that. a question.. which, i note, you did not answer' my response to rationalists is the intent of this article as such the article explains my response to you on all counts.

blessings in abundance

Sacredstar

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Sacredstar

You said 'as such, my question is just that. a question.. which, i note, you did not answer' my response to rationalists is the intent of this article as such the article explains my response to you on all counts.

blessings in abundance

Sacredstar

just so i'm clear here...

your view is that any questions posed by people that consider themselves to be rational are already addressed in the article?

however, the question that is posed is outside of the scope of the article. how, then, can said article address the query?

the question that i'm asking is based on your initial assertion, thusly phrased:

The state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance.

to which i'm asking you to provide some intersubjective evidence to substantiate this assertion.

unfortunately, the intersubjective evidence to support this assertion is not contained in the article as far as i can discern. if it is, perhaps you can facilitate this process by pointing it out?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Sacredstar, and a late welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by Sacredstar

The state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance. When humanity does not live in harmony with the natural laws of the universe, the energy that manifests attracts negativity bio-electromagnetically, which in turn creates chaos.

Just curious, how does war figure into your equation here? If the "natural laws" include "eat or be eaten," how does that figure with the "peace, love and harmony" I hear so many espouse? There are, after all, things in nature that are not very pretty to look at, but are still a part of the natural reality. Do you advocate looking to nature as a source for morality? After all, nature demonstrates repeatedly non-commital fathers, and even mothers. Nature advocates keeping harems. Nature advocates eating one's children. Etc., etc., etc. Natural laws are wonderful creations, to be sure, but I seriously question looking to them for moral guidance.

This is the golden rule, and the Science of Being, that is buried amongst the wisdom of every religion and philosophy of the great and ancient indigenous peoples.

Indigenous peoples know of where I speak, it is from them that I draw my questions here. They understand intimately the cycle of life and death.

Rationalists see reason as the faculty by which fundamental truths are apprehended. These fundamental truths are the causes, or "reasons", that things exist or happen. Their fundamental truths are based upon previous scientific parameters and, in their view, it is proven.

Do you see this as a bad thing?

In the 21st century things are changing rapidly as more and more scientists determine that there are metaphysical factors that impact on material existence. Science is going through a metamorphosis due to its growing relationship with these different metaphysical realities.

One can hope, but metaphysics are generally beyond the scope of rational science. It is hard to quantify the unquantifiable. Otherwise, we could prove, or not, the existence of God.

When scientists change their intent and will, so do their perceptions, reason, and understanding.

Ah, Schroedenger's (sp?) cat?

What does this conjure up in one’s mind? The word “irrational” is very emotive and irrationality comes from thought-led emotion, A rationalist’s view is fixed, and is certainly not based upon positive intent and will, producing the reason for the accusation of irrationality.

Might it rather be said that a rationalist looks to where the evidence leads, rather than leading the evidence to a foregone conclusion?

Throughout the history of mankind we have made wrong assumptions based on physical matter and scientific evidence.

Oh, have we? Really? It is a terrifying thought that modern medicine is based on wrong presumptions.

Cellular Biologist, Professor Bruce Lipton said “For almost fifty years we have held the illusion that our health and fate were pre-programmed in our genes, a concept referred to as genetic determinacy. Cellular biologists now recognise that the environment, the external universe and our internal physiology, and more importantly, our perception of the environment, directly controls the activity of our genes.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Genetic predisposition is just that, predisposition. If cancer runs in your family, then there is a good chance you will get it. Maybe not, if you take precautions. Likewise, even if cancer does not run in your family, you can still get it if you participate in activities that are known to precipitate cancer. I have a genetic disease, but no one in my family has it. Where did it come from? Did I will it upon myself? Hardly.

The quantum physics behind these mechanisms provide insight into the communication channels that link the mind-body duality.

I fail to see the connection, in light of the reality. Will or intent is great, but by itself it is nothing. Without effort, will is useless.

An awareness of how vibrational signatures and resonance impact molecular communication constitutes a master key that unlocks a mechanism by which our thoughts, attitudes and beliefs create the conditions of our body and the external world. This knowledge can be employed to actively redefine our physical and emotional well-being.”

Ah, so I brought my disease on myself? Interesting, since I have tried all of my life to be a good, decent human being, thanks to my mom.

Until Geiger came along we didn't know that radiation existed, but it was always there and we were always affected by it. It was the invention of the achromatic microscope in 1830 by Joseph Jackson Lister that enabled his son to write his paper on antiseptic surgery. From this moment on we had proof that reality also exists in the invisible. Radio and televisions sets are also detecting and processing invisible energy frequencies.

Uh-huh, so? What bearing does this have on your statements? It seems to me rather to support the rationalists you are against.

Scientists at the cutting edge now accept that everything is an energy field, operating at different frequencies, some even embrace the different dimensions.

Like who? I'm sorry, but I am still not convinced that string theory is anything more than a futile attempt with mathematics. Philosophy, so to speak, for the mere sake of philosophy. Or rather, mathematics for the mere sake of mathematics (and grant money).

Some scientists and rationalists are still trying to fit some metaphysical concepts into old models due to previous perceptions, rationality, and reason.

Because the "old" models work.

This just will not work in many cases; an example of this is remote viewing used by the CIA, Russian and Indian intelligence.

I have heard of this, but I fail to see the connection with what you are espousing.

Now the rationalist wouldn’t try a healing treatment through the use of remote viewing, because it doesn’t fit into an existing proven scientific model. The intelligence agencies have utilised remote viewing, for in excess of twenty years, and the scientists are now drawn to substantiate the metaphysical reality through reasoning. Once again, a two-way interaction with the universe.

More like forty years, by what I've read. Even so, there are more charletans at work than people who can really utilize the gift you speak of. And those that genuinely possess the gift you speak of, if they are sane, will not subject themselves to experiments to prove their abilities.

I predict that due to the change of consciousness, intent and will, the approaching years will bring us completely new models, and understanding of the fundamentals of the cosmos. Intent is the will that creates the reason, reason then creates the thought and the reasoning.

Ah, predisposition! Is that not bending the evidence to suit an agenda?

To the metaphysician, healer, and cutting edge scientist, divine intent is the will-to-good of harmony – the harmonic concordance of the universe; otherwise known as the symphony of creation, which emerges with a vibration of energetic correspondence, patterns, cycles, and spheres of existence, in addition to different dimensional reality and consciousnesses.

And so I return to my original comment, how do the "ugly" things in nature give us moral guidance? They are obviously in accord with the universe, or they would not exist. So, do we look to nature for our moral guide? Do we become animals for the sake of harmonizing with nature?

Positive feelings are harmonically compatible with the universe and keep the universe and your being in balance energetically. Positivity also creates an improved design and a higher state of consciousness due to the bio-electromagnetics of intent and will. It is the first cause and part of the natural law of the first cause and effect.

I would posit here that this is imbalance. Negative energy is also compatible with the universe. To weight everything to the positive is to not counter-balance with the negative, not to balance yin with yang, not to balance light with darkness. Positivity, by itself, is unbalanced.

Matter is the effect of spiritual laws, and these natural laws self-regulate the nature of being. Physical matter also impacts on the original cause and first principles, and this we witness in the response from mother earth, who responds to its people who are creating the disharmony, again the two way interaction.

What two way interaction? If all is "positive", then there is no balance. Original cause created matter; without original cause, matter would not exist.

We are passing through one of the great natural transitional periods in the history of human kind. We are laying the foundation for the emergence of a new species of positive human being, at the same time as experiencing massive, chaotic earth changes, some of which the scientists cannot understand, due to a lack of historical records and scientific models!

Perhaps due to the fact that nature herself refutes this?

I am pleased you have taken such great pains to post throughout this forum. Frankly though, I find myself in general disagreement. It is well and good to promote peace and harmony among all peoples, but to imply that this is the natural order of things, is a gross travesty of the evident facts.

Having said this, I do wish you peace, because that is one thing that sets humans apart from nature, at least philosophically if not in reality.

Shalom

[Sacredstar]

Dear juantoo3

I would very much like to respond to all of your questions but can we please take three at a time, (I have a pea brain LOL) so if you would be so kind to choose the first three in order of importance to you I will do my utmost to give you responses so that we can reach a much clearer and hopefully mutual understanding of what I am attempting to achieve with this article, and in so doing it may assist me to revise the article so that I may reach out to those that are destined to be reached.

Thank you in advance your help is appreciated.

Sacredstar

[Sacredstar]

Dear Vajradhara

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the question that i'm asking is based on your initial assertion, thusly phrased:The state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance.

Here is your own response

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the connection between mind and body has been well known in our cultures for thousands of years and there is plenty of empirical evidence to support this view, in both the East and West. it is a bit amusing to hear westerners react as if this is some "new" discovery

The west is catching up with the east and yes it is amusing how the medical profession are heralding it as new discoveries and that scientists are now working to understand the metaphysics that impact on us and our universe. For us healers it is wonderful that they are now proving what we have always known and have worked with on a daily basis. We live in very exciting times!

Blessings in abundance

Sacredstar

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Sacredstar,

thank you for the post.

let me try again.

"The state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance."

in the Eastern view, this doesn't really make much sense. it seems to be drawing distinctions where none exist, in our view. there is no real methodology to seperate the physical from the spiritual realities, or, to use our terminology, there is no method to seperate the Absolute from the Relative.

however, it is not correct to say that the Relative conditions the Absolute, at least from our view.

nevertheless, my question to you is can you provide any intersubjective evidence to support your assertion that the state of physical reality is the barometer of balance versus imbalance.

let me ask it like this.

what relevance does conditioned phenomena have to unconditioned phenomena? how can conditioned phenomena be an indicator of unconditioned phenomena?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Sacredstar!

Originally Posted by Sacredstar

I would very much like to respond to all of your questions but can we please take three at a time, (I have a pea brain LOL) so if you would be so kind to choose the first three in order of importance to you I will do my utmost to give you responses so that we can reach a much clearer and hopefully mutual understanding of what I am attempting to achieve with this article, and in so doing it may assist me to revise the article so that I may reach out to those that are destined to be reached.

Thank you in advance your help is appreciated.

Ah, modesty! I have followed your numerous posts, and numerous threads, since you started posting, so I am of the opinion you are fully capable of giving as much as you are receiving. The context of what you present in this thread supports my statement. It is no small feat to present the opinion you do with some thought.

Now, I also understand how difficult it can be to put your heart into something like what you have written here, only to have it challenged. But that is how we grow in our understanding. It doesn't help your cause to call rationalists "irrational." I must keep in mind that this is your rationale for your reason.

A great deal of the answer you seek from me is contained in the thread "morality within evolution." There, a group of us began with a question, and looked deeply into much that surrounds the issue. The issue is brought up again by you here, only you claim to have the answer. Funny thing is, the group of us already looked at your answer, before you even arrived, and concluded (at least I did) that it is mistaken. Looking to nature for a moral guide implies humanity returning to the state of an animal. Humanity has come way beyond that now, to return is folly.

The natural universe is not composed entirely of positive energies. Indeed, if I recall my electronics correctly, a condition of only positive energy would simply shift the neutral potential to a higher level. Without a negative for the energy to flow to (or perhaps I have this backwards), there is no flow of energy. Yin and Yang. Hence, if only positive energy existed, there would be no energy flow. Since life requires energy to flow in order to exist, without energy flow there is no life. In other words, unbalance.

The natural state of the universe includes war, death, murder, among many other things humanity finds repulsive. These things are unpleasant for us to look at, but they are evidently part of the natural process or they would not exist. These things are not what humanity considers "moral," but they are natural and universal. The cycle of life and death, the web of life, the interconnection and interrelation of all life (animal, vegetable and mineral), these are things that compose in one form or another the aboriginal belief systems. Positive and negative, light and dark, joy and pain, happiness and sadness, love and fear, these are the dichotomies that compose this existence. Without one side of the scale, the other side is unbalanced, and the total can not exist.

Humanity has chosen the path of morality, generally speaking, for various reasons including promotion of the species. We frown on immorality because it does not promote the species. The question remains from the other thread, "where did humanity learn morality?" If God is positive (and this is assuming God exists, which I do), then promoting positive energy is to draw nearer to the Source, to draw nearer to God. In that respect, positive energies do advance the spirit towards that from which it came. Even so, without the negative pole, that energy cannot flow.

If it helps, think in terms of suns and stars, and the corresponding black holes. The suns give off light, heat and energies; and black holes absorb light, heat and energies. As a rule, suns do not take in, and black holes do not give out. (In reality, exceptions exist, so this is not a perfect example). Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. Original cause set all of this in motion, so matter (or energy) cannot "impact Original cause." Here, I presume you to mean influence or change by the term "impact." This would be tantamount to making God in our image.

It is with these natural realities that I refute the bias and assumptions in your presentation. Should humanity promote the positive aspects of reality? If they wish to draw nearer to the Source, then yes. But to ignore the negative, or imply that it has no purpose in the natural universe, is mistaken and frankly, unbalanced.

I do hope I have not been too harsh. I submit this with love in the hope of increasing understanding.

Shalom