UISIOM - Unity Is Seen In Open Minds

Monday, March 21, 2005

Ideology Before Science

(The Differences Between Men and Women)

     I am not whining about the comments that the Harvard President Summers made when attending a conference this year. He was quoted at that conference; I am paraphrasing, saying that he advocated studying whether or not there were biological explanations factors for the lower numbers of women achieving top scores on subject matter such as math and science testing.

     Upon hearing that statement, coming forth, three University Presidents from other schools replied after being motivated by these comments. "Speculation that 'innate differences' may be a significant cause of under representation by women in science and engineering may rejuvenate old myths and reinforce negative stereotypes and biases," they wrote.

     I believe what they where trying to say, is what I have stated for years now. That there was, and still is an innate difference genetically speaking between men and women the results of nature’s evolutionary behavior patterns for safeguarding a species survival.

     Such as those factors offered within the biological and/or physical structures demonstrated between men and women, yet not mentally in their nature. Those innate factors of differences and one’s mental capabilities are being and have been modified by culture through technology. And have been changing more towards equality between the sexes than in our early years of our expansion.

     Basic rule 101 evolution states that in order for a species to continue their existence there had to be innate differences, between the two sexes that had more to do with survival and functional awareness, than consciousness and technology. Those innate differences were more to do with strength and endurance than thinking and contemplation.

     So in those early years of our advancement as a species, it seems that those innate differences were very important for our survival as a race. Those innate differences had to result in the physical as well as the biological structures yet not within the mental differences. The latter is not from nature’s illustration but rather a portrayal of a species sexual characteristic view point. This is usually imposed by men upon an unwarranted endorsement of and by women.

     In order for the experience of evolution to perform, it’s process of life’s expansion of our functional awareness, in our case that is speaking. Evolution had to make sure that one of the opposite members of our species had to be stronger than the other in ways that would be a benefit to our existence and their survival.

     Thus ensuring that life’s beings of functional awareness goes forth. It would not benefit life’s existence if both were equal in strength, and physical appearance. In those early years with nature’s environment being an often very lethal and treacherous place in which to exist. So those innate differences had to hold true.

     Yet in time, this will, has changed, and will continue changing until the differences are not sexes inabilities. Rather personal difference of choice in learning and performing any task that they will choose.

     Evolutions diagram was aware of this problem for the survival of a species. So the innate differences made sure that one of the sexes, usually that was of child bearing the woman, remained weaker and more delicate than the other. It was nature’s way of keeping one somewhat safer. While the other protected, defended, and provided with a greater advantage. It would make no sense if both where in this position at a great risk of death or harm.

     In particular, the one carrying the child would be at a greater risk of hindering nature’s strategy. If there were not those innate differences then what would have ensured that our species would continue to flourish if this was not meant to be in those early years, what would have been?

     For both were innately equal in thinking and thoughts as to what part they had to play to ensure that life goes on. Woman’s thoughts went towards the home base child rearing and those nurturing aspects that were just as important, if not more, in our early survival as the human race.

     While men’s thoughts went towards the defending, providing and controlling those other needed aspects towards their existence that were a danger to fulfilling their goals of continued existence.

     As for those innate differences in various kinds of task performances between the sexes, it’s not as much mental as it was physical. What mental differences that there are, are not the results, again, of nature’s processes. But rather the end results of natures misunderstood meaning for survival.

     Resulting in men’s dictation through their cultures while using their strength along with their bodily structures to impose as laws the standards to which they are the rulers.

     When evolutionary laws and rules are simply applied to nature’s lower life’s forces of a functional awareness and their developmental processes in nature, the factor we have to take in to account then are the physical and biological, within limited awareness.

     These rules and laws become twisted when we compare nature’s evolutionary progression to the higher form of its purpose, us, the only species that hold consciousness within our awareness. We must look at circumstances other than those of innate differences to explain the mental differences between the two sexes.

     It's not that women do not have the inner ability innately to do certain forms of what’s often been referred to as men orientated task fields of endeavors. It’s only that they throughout time, until recent years, have not been able or in certain cases not allowed to use that part of their minds thinking and it’s contemplating factors that help simulate those thoughts towards some of the same fields, as have most men in those questionable fields.

     Now with technology and thoughtful thinking women, they are now viewing those fields that held little thought, or none at all, towards what they were and are capable of now performing. The more thought that they put forth in those men dominating fields of undertaking the more they will infiltrate the boundaries of dissimilarity. They may, and even some times will, perform as well if not better in certain areas than men do or have.

     Cultures are basically men dictating the drive modes of thinking and therefore control the thoughts that follow towards their belief system. Those thoughts are only restricted by their limitations. When a woman is not encouraged to show interest in certain fields of thoughts and work performance. They seek neither those thoughts nor activities that lay before them in the same way that most men do.

     It’s not that there are differences in their nature, but rather to the thinking and in the amount of time spent contemplating on subject matter. Those differences are not innate but rather installed by culture and more so by the men that rule its ways. So within the unlimited awareness of knowledge offered within any given culture and its technology, is the only way that equality in actions and thoughts will come forth.

     As far as doing any scientific research, that might support and defend his statements. I say go for it, yet remember that research will in some cases rejuvenate those old myths and will reinforce without a doubt negative stereotypes and reaction biases.

     Was it not similar thoughts and statements made before concerning the differences between the races? That desire to prove within the influence of science, that certain people were genetically inferior to others. Well it fell very short of its goals, yet there were those that insisted that it was worth the look into the research backed by science, well was it, and will this as well? If any thing, what it showed us was that we are all the same even with our differences, not the innate ones as much as in the mental abilities.

     Knowledge, encouragement in thinking and today’s technology are factors that helped change natures rules and it’s by laws. Consciousness over functional awareness changes thoughts and thinking. Adding in today’s technology and that’s even more reason to see that natures innateness between the sexes, is no longer holding true as it once did.

     Woman and man now can and do perform similar, if not some of the same types of physical and mental tasks. In which are being performed in today’s world and they will even involve them selves more in our future world as well.

     Alone or together, along side or away, as equal existences is where they both belonged at the beginning and shall in the end. Women do not need men to help them raise their offspring, nor is to provide for them, defend and protect them or even to survive, as much in today’s environmental and technological world as they once did.

     They have more of a choice towards wanting instead of needing. They have their own thoughts as to what they can do or want to do. It’s up to our culture and all other cultures as well as to those that are the power foundation behind those cultures. To see that a woman’s will of thought and her desire to think can be achieved now and in the future as well freely with out restriction nor intimation.

     Those are the only mental limitations that I see and they are not innate, but rather instilled under false assumptions by our own culture and others as well. And held there as a result of preconception imposed by men, some what backed by nature yet misrepresented, as to what a woman is and does or does not do, with her thoughts, her thinking and her body, how about you?

http://hotabercrombiechick.blogspot.com/2005/02/liberals-ideology-science.html

- Jan/uisiom

jan at Monday, March 21, 2005 3:13 AM Comments (0)

Monday, March 21, 2005

Spider Web String Theory - PART 1 of 2

     I propose what I have termed the SPIDER WEB, will be the ultimate string theory. It’s the SUPER SYMMETRY OF ALL STRING THEORIES, in which it incorporates the existence of a cross section of inner containing vibrating wave pluses, in a spherical approach through out space and time to be experienced. Resulting in what I have termed the energy conversion of information through a Creational Universal Consciousness of thought.

     The original causation, allowing the teleportation of electrical vibrating impulses, along with a force field of energy, to flow along the access strips of the web like structure surrounding and stretching foreword, while being contained within our cosmos.

     It was this configuration that resulted in forming the existence within our universe to be experienced. By using, a set of often contradictory rules and laws, which govern our universe as well as our very being in a unity of transformation of duality, was brought forth. This Shows that an expanding universe and the steady state theory are not at odds with each other, but rather are happening together simultaneously side by side form that singularity of causation radiation. The expansion of the energy going forth while carrying the information in a non-changing state is not a contradiction. This manifestation and the materialization between energy and matter formed the many levels of functional awareness, thus allowing the triad of consciousness expansion factors to take place.

     By combining, the Bosonic and the Fermions string theories together as one inner changeable component, to explain the factors behind the universal causation and its evolutionary effects. Bosonic particles are seen as transmitting energy, information is a structure of energy, and those are the forces that mobilize our universe. They are the thoughts of Creation, the causation, of the existence. While Fermions particles are on the other hand seen as those components that make up matter, here again information is also another aspect of energy. Existing thought, that will take form in the thought experience of Evolution, they are the effects, of the experience.

B=CCE + F=EEE = FA + C3

E=MC2

(Continued on "Spider Web String Theory - PART 2 of 2" . . . )

jan at Monday, March 21, 2005 3:05 AM Comments (0)

Monday, March 21, 2005

Spider Web String Theory - PART 2 of 2

     (Continued from "Spider Web String Theorgy - PART 1 of 2")

     THE UNIVERSE IS LAID OUT LIKE A SPIDER WEB OF STRINGS, WITH MULTI-INTERSECTIONS STRETCHING BEFORE IT WHILE TRANSPORTING INFORMATION ALONG ITS PASSAGEWAYS. THIS INFORMATION IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE VIBRATING IMPULSES EMANATING IN A RHYTHMIC WAVE LENGTH OF BOTH HARMONY (physics) AND DISORDER (quantum physics). ALONG THOSE, INNER CONNECTING SPIDER LIKE WEBBINGS, THAT ARE SURROUNDED BY AN ELECTRICAL MAGNETIC VIBRATING FORCE FIELD. IS THE INFORMATION THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LIFE FORMS AND NONE LIFE FORMS WITHIN THIS EXISTENCE TO BE EXPERIENCED?

     AT ALL LEVELS OF THIS FORMATION, IS A TRANSFORMATION FROM THE MOST COMPLEX TO THE SIMPLISTIC, THUS FORMING A STRUCTURE OF UNIVERSAL DUALITIES BETWEEN ENERGY AND MATTER. NOT AS MUCH, AS TO HAVING A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE, RATHER AS HAVING, A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE OF INFORMATION. THAT IN TIME TAKES ON THE FORM OF A TRIAD OF CONSCIOUSNESS OUT OF A FUNCTIONAL, WELL DESIGNED SINGULARITY OF AWARENESS. IN EVERY SINGULARITY, YOU WILL FIND A DUALITY AND WHEN SEARCHING DEEPER, YOU FIND THE TRINITY.

     Following along those strings is the physics involved as the circumstances of science and it’s at those intersections that the quantum physics of science can be found.

     SUPER SYMMETRY, which means an equal matching between Bosonic (particles that transmit forces) and Fermions (particles that make up matter) these theories are related by transformations that are called dualities. If two theories are related by a duality transformation, it means that the first theory can be transformed in some way, so that it ends up looking just like the second theory. The two theories are then said to be dual to one another under that kind of transformation. THIS IS THE SPIDER WEB THEORY.

     Bosonic, creational, causation, the existence of energy + fermions, evolutionary, effect, the experience of matter = functional awareness, the transformation towards a, consciousness/triad.

B+F=FA+C³C³+FA=F+B

- Jan/uisiom

jan at Monday, March 21, 2005 2:54 AM Comments (0)

Monday, March 21, 2005

The Gentleman Cannibal - PART 1 OF 2

     This is a reply to a blog posting (link provided at the end of "The Gentleman Cannibal - PART 2 OF 2").

     As to the subject matter concerning the practice of killing upon request and your follow up thoughts as to whether or not it should be a punishable crime to kill a person even when that individual has requested you to that bidding.

     As you stated, when people talk about "killing on request," the practice generally carries different connotations than "euthanasia" or "assisted suicide" does. By the latter practices, we usually mean a doctor helping a terminally ill patient to end his or her life, sometimes when that person might not be able to do so effectively themselves. Killing on request, however, covers any situation in which a person might ask another to kill them. But apart from the connotations, I think I can rightly say that the "killing on request" category includes euthanasia/assisted suicide--at the base level, both situations involve a request for another person to end one's life.

     You go on to say, that in principle there is nothing wrong about killing on request and that in its self would not mandate its being a criminal offense.

     You go on to state farther, that I do hold, however, that it would only be permissible in situations where the person asking to be killed would be considered as having the capacity to enter into a contractual agreement--being of age, sane, not intoxicated, and the like. The question of sanity would of course be an issue.

     But, if the person could be proven to fulfill capacity requirements and also furnish proof of their request (a formal government "please allow ___ to kill me" form, perhaps?), the practice should be legal.

     Then you ask, would anyone actually qualify as having the capacity to request someone to kill them since that entails their being sane? May be, and may be not. In practice, I would guess that most people who would sincerely make such a request would not qualify as sane. But in theory it is possible that a sane person might wish to end his or her own life (especially if we get into the area of euthanasia or assisted suicide), and I believe that it should not be criminal to oblige them.

     You finish with, in the end; it is a question of how much freedom you are willing to grant individuals with regard to what they do with their own bodies, as long as that activity does not unlawfully harm others. It does complicate the issue when another person is involved, but I would take such a request as a specific granting of rights involving an act done to a person's body to another individual, and hold that such a granting of rights is within an individual's authority as long as they meet the previously mentioned criteria.

     My conclusion to your questions concerning the killing upon request is as follows.

     As to whether it is right or wrong as a criminal offence and should be, punishable depends on your views of life’s existence and death's experience. Adding in culture, society, parental dynamics, environmental evolutionary factors plus the issue of consciousness, as to those aspects of its transgression and you get your answer.

     1) Life’s whole objective in is most broad-spectrum of its characteristics, that all life forms must become skilled as to enduring, adapting, transforming and most of all to stay breathing, to stay alive through any means essential, evolution 101.

     2) Death’s experience is the end result of that agenda. A part of evolution’s renewal transformation program. And is the result of many factors such as accidental aspects due to sickness, unexplained events or either by deliberate factors such as murder, euthanasia/assisted suicide, intentional execution, such as capital punishment the resulting in the death sentence, and my favorite, war--justified killing upon request. That’s for a later time.

     3) Culture, society and parenting manipulation are in their most basic terms. Is fundamentally, how individuals are taught to view life and death as it affects their world, as well as their being? If they are educated, that life holds a higher standard than death. Moreover, that there is more to give reason for living one’s life while letting others live theirs as well. You may see killing in any from as wrong and unprovoked. On the other hand, if you are taught that death is just the end consequences as an intervention to a problem, and at best the answer to it. Plus that death out weighs any advancement to living, then you would see killing as a necessary event taking place upon the request of either party as being justified.

     4) Consciousness evolves from functional awareness. The kind of concepts and related symbols that an individual is capable of learning depends upon their level of consciousness surfacing from within their inner functional awareness. The individual is influenced by their relatives, family, friends, neighbors, community, religious conviction, social standings and culture, etc, to name just a few.

     Those responsibilities for the development of that individual’s teaching training and conditioning them, may turn their basic needs and desires into an individual that’s a self containing unit. In which is socially acceptable to all because of their controlled behavior patterns and restricted impulses.

     Therefore, if the reinforcement of killing through conditioning is incorporated within their personality (using the reward and punishment system) then society, culture and parenting guide lines, along with nature on a whole are at the root of this conditioning process, and the environment is equally as important. An individual’s out look on life and death is basically the outward illustration of their cultural and social views accepted and offered by those around them.

     (continued in "The Gentleman Cannibal - PART 2 OF 2" . . . )

jan at Monday, March 21, 2005 2:41 AM Comments (0)

Monday, March 21, 2005

The Gentleman Cannibal - PART 2 OF 2

     (Continued from "The Gentleman Cannibal - PART 1 OF 2")

     Let us truly understand that we are all wounded in the ways of our thinking and the thoughts that follow into the world. The outcome depends on factors in which at first, we have very little or no control over until later in our life’s progression. Yet when our functional awareness turns inward towards the enlightenment within our consciousness of being, then we can see life’s important and deaths interruption and it is at that point, life will rule first over death of any kind. Even when or if death means that one will re-enter this world or another realm in which to carry on their inner driven quest.

     It looks as if the evolution lays down the necessary foundation for the individuals thinking and thought development for both physical and mental achievements. While the social, cultural, parenting procedures and even our environmental influences may and I believe do, alter these foundations for either the better or for the worse of an individuals enlightenment and its development out of a functional awareness towards an inner consciousness.

     We might conclude then, that the evolutionary process determines what can and maybe the possible limits of accomplishment for any individual in any given situation. While the social cultural and family and those environmental regulation determines just how close to these limits of an individual’s performance that they may come to in a given situation. Life and death are two of those situations.

     As we know, life is at the top of evolution’s principle and death is at the bottom rung on that ladder. So I believe that life is compelling more than death is speaking.

     I leave you with these thoughts, first I believe in killing when one is in much physical pain. Brought about through suffering sickness of body not the just the mind and goes not so gentle in to its evening’s hours. It at times can be come very over bearing when there is no hope for recovery within the future to be seen. I believe in capital punishment as a last deterrent. I believe in killing through and over self preservation that inner drive to strive. Last unfortunately, I believe in if there is ever such a call for, a just war, it should be fought to save a nation, a country and with out a doubt our world.

     But to killing someone just because, they are not happy with their life at those moments. And find no other way to deal with their own outcome to those problems. Rather than to want another to be burden with their death, just because they are not willing to end it them self, yet they expect that another should be and will do. I do not think so.

     It’s unthinkable to me under any circumstances what so ever to kill another upon a request that may change later. We all have second thoughts. Those moments within that we change our mind for what ever reason that we so choose, and what if they do just before you killed them. What if they shout out no, never mind, I want to live, my bad.

     Then are you not a murderer if you fail to stop in time as to this latest, request and kill them. That to me is not euthanasia/assisted suicide with justification. Even if they agreed in the beginning, it’s always what’s in the ending that counts. You would agree with me that no means stop and that’s the law. One is held accountable if they fail to do so. So it should be with your quested individual no is no. The full right to a person’s body under any kind of circumstances is their thoughts. As to those thoughts they can, may and most likely will change.

     You also stated that as long as no other was physically hurt that it was alright as well. Well you accept the thought of killing some one on request as not being of any harm to any one. What about the mental harm or does that not count as pain. The harm and suffering to another that you will be inflicting upon them by those actions that you are setting forth.

     Not just the person acting out and upon that request. How about the family members, the friends and other loved ones that may not feel as you or the requested individual desires. That, that’s the only answer to the situation at hand to kill one self through the act of another upon a request that may in fact in its self be questionable as to one’s mental aptitude at its very best.

     Your results could torment people for years forth coming, causing much pain and harm through their anguish. With unknowing factors that could come back to haunt the person that carried out that last request in the years to come as well. So you would not be avoiding pain nor harm but rather saying who cares as long as I do not.

     In the end, it is a question of how much freedom you are willing to grant individuals with regard to what they do with their own bodies, as long as that activity does not unlawfully harm others. Is that your closing statement?

     Well it is unlawful if not justified by circumstance other than I have agreed to. And therefore does just what you say it should not do, it will bring impairment and hurting to another and/or others, and more important, so to a civilization and its societies. As you can see it’s doing that now all around us through out our world. It goes against nature’s purpose of existence and our consciousness of experience towards life to killing for the sake of killing.

     And when you justified it, you better be more than correct. And that there is no other answer for it, it seems to me that this has not been working as an answer to someone’s inability to live their life so far as I can see. I thought that do your own thing was taking on responsibility for our own action and not handing them over to another for that purpose.

     So my ending thought on requested killing is, kill yourself spare another that situation. If they are not that courageous enough to take their own life then what nerve do they have asking another to have more courage than they them self seem to have.

     If they can not commit suicide them self, then asking for another to do it for them seems to be a spineless decision at best. I would have more respect for them if they just ended their life with out another’s helping hand. Then that’s really their choice of freedom to do what they want with not only their body but also their life. That way their freedom is not my imprisonment, psychologically and physically. I also speak from experience about the act of killing. I am a veteran of a war. And believe me when you look into the eyes of death, its life staring back at you.

http://hotabercrombiechick.blogspot.com/2003/02/gentleman-cannibal.html

- Jan/uisiom

jan at Monday, March 21, 2005 2:36 AM Comments (0)

Monday, March 21, 2005

Sixth Sense in Animals

     This is a reply to a blog post (link provided below).

     You had stated that after the Asian disaster that occurred recently, that very few animal bodies, if any were found. As I like to say, this has stimulated one of the old ways of thinking, as if it was a new thought being brought forth. Those animals in general have the noticeable ability to sense approaching peril. To paraphrase, your thoughts, so if it’s true, is there anything mythological about their ability? No. Is it what we often refer to as the sixth sense? Yes. So, just what is the sixth sense, from a thoughtful approach?

     You go on to state, again paraphrasing if I may, if we use the reference to John Locke’s thought complex of the inner workings on his primary and secondary characters, involving the thought process within our own very being, we can see the characters and influences that objects have to produce ideas in our minds. He goes on to state that tertiary characters are manipulated to produce change in an object. The primary characters exist in objects themselves, and exist in the bodies themselves. The secondary characters are mind-dependent and exist only when perceived. They include color, smell, taste, sound and other sensible traits.

     As you have stated, again paraphrasing, let us assume something like this division seizes a form of truth. Then, as has been stated, it follows that many, perhaps a significant amount of secondary characters are possibly depending on the viewer’s sense organs. Since secondary characters are the result of objects interacting with the spectators sense organs, different sense organs would cause the perception of some sort of secondary feature.

     You refer to taking a look at another class as a consideration for a primary feature, the electromagnetic properties of an object, using the proper sense organ; it should be possible to perceive these properties as well.

     Continuing with your thoughts, this possibility can be seen in one of many ideas giving way to thoughts on bird migration. It is thought that they may have the ability to perceive the earth’s electrical magnetic force fields. If birds can navigate with the aid of an electrical magnetically-sensitive faculty, it isn’t much of a stretch to take for granted that if birds do, then why not many of the other animals as well. They too could have similar faculties providing them with that electrical magnetic communication. I believe that there are other equivalent informational transmissions concerning the world around them that they are receiving as well.

     You then stated that we as humans do not have this ability, as does the animal kingdom. A point of Addition, Clarification and Correction, the latest findings are about two years old and state that science has found a part within the brain, frontal lobe area, which plays a part within our controlling sense organ the brain. Some people are able, as with animals, of perceiving a natural catastrophe from the wavering electrical magnetic fields in a flex of discrepancy around them. At first, it was only recognized as existing in animals and thought of as not existing in humans.

     Well guess what, we do and some of us are more receptive towards its use, mostly unintentionally, than others. I believe that throughout time, our evolution has dampened and suppressed its use in most of our life’s ways. Unlike animals that do not have that luxury of modern technology to give them the ability to ease up on that part of their sense organ that is needed for their preservation, the same as ours.

     As you have stated, natural disasters do not happen randomly, yes, they do follow certain pre-existing conditions. The activity from movements between tectonic plates helps cause earthquakes, we have eruptions by volcanic actions, and many on going forms of atmospheric conditions result in tornados, etc. which all have a predetermined signal of those natural occurrences, therefore in some animals as well as humans, to put it basically, home in on and interpret those impressions. If your point was that there are many intrinsic sensing signals being transmitted relating to those events prior to those events actually taking place, you are right.

     You say that it’s not then unreasonable to assume that animals with different and additional sensory faculties could already know how to detect the conditions that proceed natural disaster-especially considering the evolutionary benefit of doing so.

     Your Conclusion: Because there is no reason to think it impossible or unlikely for (some) animals to be able to detect conditions that usually precede natural disasters, I think the common anecdotal evidence for animals having some sort of (non-mythical) "sixth sense" is enough to make it reasonable to believe they might. Denying the possibility might even be unreasonable. Still, we should remember that attributing such abilities to animals doesn't require that we think anything "mythical" or "supernatural" is going on - there are convincing explanations from within a completely mundane worldview.

     My Conclusion: I agree with your conclusion to a position, yet you could have gone even farther with stating, as I will. Not only have a few of those out there in the animal world had this ability that we as a race also have. Yet over time we have become detached and alienated from its use, the guidance and mostly unaware of its presence until just recently. So if we start developing this inner sensing ability or sixth sense, who knows where it will lead along side of science in foretelling many earth events of natural motion.

     Then it only makes common wisdom that if it was in nature’s procedures as a result of the experience of evolution. Well, are we then not part of that same process of arrangement under nature as the animals? If we are as many claim that we are, then we must have that inner ability as well as they do in the animal kingdom. This is one of several factors behind the inner workings involving preservation of a species. The ability to be capable of sensing the impressions emanating from the electrical magnetic force fields, and then translating that message into a forewarning as to events that are about to occur within their surrounding area, or at least close by. As you so neatly put it, especially considering the evolutionary benefit of doing so, that is having a sixth sense of intelligence to help channel us.

     I believe that the more we depended on culture the less we depended on nature. The farther away from nature, which we travel as a culture, the farther we distance ourselves from its foremost inner teachings and workings, we could eventually misplace its use and lose its purpose. I believe that we are not part of nature’s principle, yet we became part of nature’s diagram. Acknowledgement is acceptance.

http://hotabercrombiechick.blogspot.com/2004/12/animals-sixth-sense.html

- Jan

jan at Monday, March 21, 2005 2:25 AM Comments (0)

Monday, March 21, 2005

Answer to an Email on Telepathic Communication

     I agree with your opening statement. There are several theories as to why human beings are capable of extra sensory perception between each other. I like your analogy of the flashbulb, but I prefer using this analogy. It relates more to the crystal theory on the ability of certain creatures that inhabit our planet are able to communicate to each other from a distance through what may be referred to as an electro magnetic field or energy vortex. One could look at the workings of the inner psyche as if it was a computer and each individual has their own unique computer. As with the Internet, one needs a server in which to connect these computers. In the realm of metaphysics, this airy, gassy, electrical impulse is the server representing this transportation of information between computers, hence between individuals. It’s not that certain people have this ability; it is that all people have this ability and sometimes psychological, emotional, environmental, and/or biological factors stimulate this occurrence.

     Just because one connects with another does not indicate this connection has anything to do with similar thoughts of either party. It has to do more with the somewhat accidental engagement of telepathic communication at first, and may continue to become more actual. Your definition of the soul is near par. The soul is more or less an earth bound essence. The spirit is the void between the etheric essences and has little to do with memory of the soul and more to do with the spirit’s essence, a part of the singularity in which we are all an element of. It would be nice if all individuals that an individual could communicate with telepathically were actually part of your definition of a soul mate. But in reality, this is not true. Just because one has the ability to communicate through telepathic communication does not mean that they are compatible with you. As with some computers, the information sometimes being teleported between each other can be incompatible to one. Your references to astral projection, telepathic communication, remote viewing are all parts and aspects of the ability to use the inner making of one’s mind through the electrical impulses of a psychological phenomenon equivalent to quantum physics.

     Each and every one of us has this ability. It’s whether or not we learn to accept it, use it, and trust it. All the while remembering there are those who can abuse it, bring about much distrust from using it and a manipulation through false representation.

- Jan/uisiom

jan at Monday, March 21, 2005 2:22 AM Comments (0)

Monday, March 21, 2005

Out of Body (Near Death) Experiences

     This is a reply to a blog post (link provided below).

     Answer to your question concerning memories of the near death experiences. If you believe only in the biological aspects of the brain and its thoughts transmission than, you may be correct in assuming that there could not be this on going event.

     You stated that even if these experiences are really a person’s soul, their consciousness, or spirit, operating independently of hers or his body. If this is true, then how do they retain their memory once their body has been revived?

     You then gave an answer to your own question. [You started that for the sake of argument, it is necessary to grant the existence of some sort of a soul that has perceptive powers, as well as the faculty of memory.] Then you go on to say but in normal, body-life, we don’t make use of those powers. Here is another problem that you have in comparing the two together as being similar, normal life thought is not operating on the same stimulating vibration cortex, as is the abnormal near death experience.

     One you say is a life memory existence the other is a death experience memory assertion, where is the similarity? The physical memory faculties in our brain are the envelopes containing thought and transmitting memory.

     Memory in its self is an electrical impulse of the mind, the transmission is not organic, and it’s the receiver that is that the brain. This communication of events and other perceived memories are electrically stored and not organically implanted.

     You have tried to take two different states of thought transmission and memory retention. To question one against the other, next time use apples and oranges.

     Retrieving memories from the brain is not the same as retrieving memories from the mind. The brain could be looked at like the mail drop at your home. You do not have to be home to get your letter and you may chose to read it at your own timing. The mind is the message within that letter. It does not need you home to be delivered. And if you forget to open, it is still there.

     You finish with stating that, in any case near-death experience memories aren’t from a bodily viewpoint anyway. No kidding. You seemed to answer your own inquiry yet never seemed to grasp it. I am not sure of where you stand on this issue, or if you even, know.

     Your ending statement the same way you started asking, so how is it that memories of non-bodily experiences occurring when the brain is unable to form memories become brain-based memories that a person can report when they are revived?

     Well as I stated the brain is the envelope, containing the message, the receiver. The mind is sending the messages it’s the transmitter. When a receiver stops, it does not mean that the transmission stops. As to your answer, just maybe the message wants to be remembered because it was important. And just possibly may only be able to appear as these altered states of awareness for your consideration.

http://hotabercrombiechick.blogspot.com/2004/12/out-of-body-experiences.html

- Jan/uisiom

jan at Monday, March 21, 2005 2:16 AM Comments (0)

Monday, March 21, 2005

Unsupported and Unsupportable Assumptions

     This is a reply to a blog post (link provided below).

     All assumptions no matter how absurd that they may be, hold to a certain point of clarity to evidence that may be justified when all the factors involved in this assumption have proven correct. These assumptions no matter how strange that they may be, are basically the inner mind’s justification for evidence not seen by all at first. Sometimes this evidence will become more justified with accepted proof and verification while other supporting evidence of this assumption may take an intuition that only the mind offers in its computer association to our psyche.

     One must remember that sometimes the assumption that is made on a topic or subject matter has already inside of our mind offered the proof of its existence through the inner works of contemplation. The supporting evidence that follows takes form and matches the jargon of the specific field of endeavor.

http://hotabercrombiechick.blogspot.com/2005/01/unsupportable-assumptions.html

- Jan/uisiom

jan at Monday, March 21, 2005 2:05 AM Comments (0)

Monday, March 21, 2005

Armageddon?

Interested in gathering ideas as to the speculations behind the possibilities of Armageddon happening within the next generation. And exactly as to what individuals foresee as this Armageddon.

- Jan/uisiom

jan at Monday, March 21, 2005 1:57 AM Comments (0)