Take the Wacco conspiracy quiz

[Dixon]

Sharingwisdom, while I'm substantially in agreement with your post, I do want to point out one thing--

What if what you're calling beliefs are someone's actual experiences?

Conclusions (i.e. beliefs), such as, for instance, "This conspiracy is [or isn't] real", are NEVER given directly by our experience. They are always based on some interpretation of our experience, which itself is based on at least one assumption ("This conclusion is implied by that experience"). Since our interpretations are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, open-mindedness about alternative explanations of our experience is always in order.

[arthunter]

I like to think that all members of this forum are encouraged to present ideas and links to support those ideas .... I see a lot on this forum that I don't agree with and sometimes I comment and disagree, but it is never in the nature of my comments to discredit the author, as I realize that all here are worthy of my respect ... we choose to live in a civilized world and it is our very actions ( and words ) which determine if that choice is realized ...

I think that this topic has been analyzed to death when it's really very simple ... an idea is presented with information to support it ... you either care enough to do your own research or you just don't give a dam ...

I could post again the lists of "conspiracy theories" that have been proven to be true, and actually that list is growing as brave souls expose the ugly hidden realities of our world, .....but I can't be bothered ... I could write, once again, about how the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been used purposely to discredit those telling the truth, but I have better things to do ...

I will say two things before I call it a night .....

sharingwisdom is correct regarding her observation about this forum and how people are leaving ... I've noticed that too ... there have been several other members who have complained about being stalked and harassed and then they disappeared .... I have to wonder why ...

and Scott, I reread your comment about my posting and I have to object to your assumption that gang stalking involves "Pretty much everyone around you".... this is not true and I never insinuated that it was ... Gang stalking involves security groups, like neighborhood watch, who are supposed to be keeping our communities safe ... it might be a good system, though personally I don't believe in any action against anyone without due process ( unless you're a thug of course ) ... the problem with the system is that the top level, those in command of it, are corrupt, so instead of targeting true criminals, innocent people are targeted, usually for revenge ... do you want evidence of this kind of behavior? ... do a bit of research using the term "cointelpro" ....

[Scott McKeown]

...With most media censored and under control ( see sharingwisdom's post ) and the awareness of covert policies on the rise ( as proven by whistleblowers Snowden, Ted Gunderson, William Binney, Thomas Drake, et al ) it's a fair guess that any information which concerns practices which are controversial, illegal, immoral, or questionable will be suppressed...

...A good example of this is the current Fukushima controversy ... we are being told that everything's fine, everything's under control, but when citizens take readings on our beaches they are elevated .... also, life is dying in our ocean without explanation ....

Okay, this is something I completely agree with you about: that the Fukushima issue is the perfect example of how most of this conspiracy stuff on the internet works. Just probably not in the way you think.

Scott

[sharingwisdom]

I agree that there are interpretations of experiences, and keeping an open mind is essential. Yet when there are the same experiences of people that happen over and over, there is a pattern of incidences or similarities that emerge, and with research and enough people bringing forth information that is verifiable if actually read or listened to, who have either had the experiences or recognize the patterns, further insight occurs, and this can create an awareness of awakening truth...at this level of reality. A group consciousness occurs around this that helps to support a way to deal with what is happening. This could take it out of the 'main stream' consciousness, but has grounded validity for those who experience it.

This made me ponder on reality of truth in general, like quantum physics in connection to this. For an example, as a planetary group consciousness, we have defined a chair as a 3-dimensional object that can be made out of different materials, is 'solid', comes in different shapes where people or animals will place a body part on it though it can have many other purposes. We agree to identify this awareness as a 'chair' by group consciousness. But what if one person's articulaticulation is able to perceive it multi-dimensionally, like a chair has more than 3 dimensions and moves as particles or waves of atoms that can dissolve, be moved through and re-form...that it's not solid. Some people would call that delusional, not possible, because they don't understand where the person is coming from or the experience of having the chair different than what the 'majority' agrees it to be. (It's interesting that people who have dyslexia can often see things from this perspective and have had experiences with chairs that are similar to what I've described.) This could quite possibly bring up fear in the 'majority' awareness as the agreement of perception is being asked to change structure (or in this example into a lack of structure). Change is not always so easy for many.

So the person decides they want to share this awareness with others anyways, only to find out that they are met with hostility, called derogatory names or labeled by the medical mode in having some sort of condition furthering the difference, and marginalizing the person. But the person keeps sharing the awareness and experience with others, and ultimately finds others who are having the same experience, who see the 'chair' as patterns of waves or particles of atoms that can be played with, and they live with this awareness, insight, experience and reality/truth. They can see it from the group conscious perspective also as a solid, practical object, but chose to allow this added awareness as it makes much more sense, it's much more encompassing and feels intuitively and somatically integrative.

So the interpretation of all those who have this experience in this expansive reality is not right or wrong...it's just expansive in what it encompasses. The conclusion is that there is more to it than meets the eye. That is how I see what others call 'conspiracy' or 'conspiracy theories'...there is an expansive awareness that is supported by insight, awareness, research, patterns and connections, more than meets the eyes, like an ah-ha moment. Not all perceptions fit into this experience integratively, but all are able to be seen from different levels of awareness.

And I am quite aware that I don't know what I don't know...a wonderful place for me to live in the mystery of creation, and also honor and accept what I do know, though I'm open to that changing too if it supports my evolutionary growth. Thank you, Dixon, for sparking all this for me.

Sharingwisdom, while I'm substantially in agreement with your post, I do want to point out one thing--


Conclusions (i.e. beliefs), such as, for instance, "This conspiracy is [or isn't] real", are NEVER given directly by our experience. They are always based on some interpretation of our experience, which itself is based on at least one assumption ("This conclusion is implied by that experience"). Since our interpretations are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, open-mindedness about alternative explanations of our experience is always in order.

[FluorideFree SoCo]

Fluoridated water is indeed both useless (i.e, it does not work) and harmful, the latter particularly so to young developing creatures of all types.

Money is only one of the motivators behind the push to continue and expand these water fluoridation schemes even though there is ample evidence that they simply do not work. The larger motivators are industries creating fluorides as a waste product avoiding liability and culpability for fluoride pollution, and the need to save face on the part of the "public health" and medical establishments who have fallen for this racket. For both of these groups, there is no way out that is not going to hurt... and hurt a lot.

You are welcome to visit our website at https://www.fluoridefreesonomacounty.org/ and the Fluoride Action Network website at https://fluoridealert.org/ to learn more.

Fluoridated water: May very well be a conspiracy in the sense that people may be continuing fluoridation programs to make money even knowing that fluoridation is useless or even harmful (if indeed it is).

[Dixon]

This made me ponder on reality of truth in general, like quantum physics in connection to this. For an example, as a planetary group consciousness, we have defined a chair as a 3-dimensional object that can be made out of different materials, is 'solid', comes in different shapes where people or animals will place a body part on it though it can have many other purposes. We agree to identify this awareness as a 'chair' by group consciousness. But what if one person's articulaticulation is able to perceive it multi-dimensionally, like a chair has more than 3 dimensions and moves as particles or waves of atoms that can dissolve, be moved through and re-form...that it's not solid. Some people would call that delusional, not possible, because they don't understand where the person is coming from or the experience of having the chair different than what the 'majority' agrees it to be.

Contrary to the claims of many New Age types who are selling stuff based on ridiculous claims about quantum physics, quantum physics has no effect on our experiences of objects on the human scale such as chairs. I'm not sure I'm understanding you right, but if you're claiming that some people can pass through solid chairs, I'm very, very skeptical--but I'd be pleased and delighted to have you or anyone prove me wrong; contact me and we'll get together for the demonstration. I'll even bring the chair if you wish.

So the interpretation of all those who have this experience in this expansive reality is not right or wrong...it's just expansive in what it encompasses.

On the contrary, claims about objective reality such as the solidity of chairs are indeed right or wrong--or in some cases maybe partly right and partly wrong. And such a belief may indeed be delusional, in which case it's no insult to call it such, as long as we've been willing to consider the evidence first.

The conclusion is that there is more to it than meets the eye.

Sometimes. And sometimes the converse is true: there's less to it than meets the eye.

Thank you, Dixon, for sparking all this for me.

You're most welcome. And thank you for sharing your thinking.

[Chris Dec]

In late Medieval Europe, humans didn't have a knowledge of the science we now know. Unexplained mysteries, like the discovery of and new use for an herb, were feared and deemed sorcery. Those who practiced this 'sorcery' were called witches, and were tortured, banished or executed. In many cases, these experiences, like witnessing a woman using a new herb to create sorcery, happened over and over until there was an established pattern of incidences or similarities. Villagers were able to quickly identify these similarities and flushed out the dreaded witches. Enough people brought forth information that was verifiable... so there was grounded validity, and thus was mounted a massive witch hunt. At the time, their way of dealing with what was happening seemed so sensible. The group consciousness of that time was, of course, correct. (Musta been... after all, there are no more witches there.)

It has been said in some circles that sanity is a question of agreement. Other circles warn, in a world of fugitives, those running away appear to be the fugitives.

I agree that there are interpretations of experiences, and keeping an open mind is essential. Yet when there are the same experiences of people that happen over and over, there is a pattern of incidences or similarities that emerge, and with research and enough people bringing forth information that is verifiable if actually read or listened to, who have either had the experiences or recognize the patterns, further insight occurs, and this can create an awareness of awakening truth...at this level of reality. A group consciousness occurs around this that helps to support a way to deal with what is happening. This could take it out of the 'main stream' consciousness, but has grounded validity for those who experience it.

[podfish]

re: " But what if one person's articulaticulation is able to perceive it multi-dimensionally, like a chair has more than 3 dimensions and moves as particles or waves of atoms that can dissolve, be moved through and re-form...that it's not solid."

.. quantum physics has no effect on our experiences of objects on the human scale such as chairs. I'm not sure I'm understanding you right, but if you're claiming that some people can pass through solid chairs, I'm very, very skeptical... On the contrary, claims about objective reality such as the solidity of chairs are indeed right or wrong--or in some cases maybe partly right and partly wrong..

I'm not sure what " one person's articulaticulation is able to perceive it" means; if it means motion rather than perception, I'm on your side. And 'quantum' is slung around a lot, by me too, with only faint reference to its real meanings. However -- it is indeed true that the chair is not solid in a technical sense. 'Solid' colloquially is a property of an object that means it completely fills the space within a definable boundary. Physics (not really quantum physics, but particle physics, anyway) states that there is no such thing as that kind of property. And there may be someone whose mind is expansive enough to see objects that way. Most of us simplify things like the interactions of light, particles, and fields into gross generalizations like solidity, weight, heat and force.
'course, if she is implying that enlightenment lets you violate physical laws that govern the interaction of large systems of particles in fields, she's lost me....

[Sara S]

I don't know anything much about this stuff, although I did read Bob Toben's "Space, Time and Beyond" years ago, but I have heard one definition (vague though it may be) of enlightenment as "seeing things exactly as they are"....so I thought if one could see all the particles or waves of, say, a chair, and one's own particles as well, then maybe that person could see how to walk through the chair (or wall, or whatever).....

[podfish]

I have heard one definition (vague though it may be) of enlightenment as "seeing things exactly as they are"....so I thought if one could see all the particles or waves of, say, a chair, and one's own particles as well, then maybe that person could see how to walk through the chair (or wall, or whatever).....

the problem with that is in the assumption that if you just saw more, or knew more, you'd have more actions available to you. That's not the case. You'd just have a deeper understanding of nature and reality - you wouldn't suddenly see tricky ways around its laws.

kinda like the difference to a child: for a long time, you just are given "because I told you so" as a reason for the rules around you. Later, you (hopefully) understand the motivations behind the rules.
then again, sometimes you do find out that the rules given weren't as inviolable as you were led to believe!! but I think the interactions of particles and their fields at the gross level that gives rise to 'solidity' and 'gravity' are pretty well understood. You aren't going to somehow cunningly fit the particles of your body in between those of the chair just by grokking more thoroughly.

[Sara S]

Hmmm...how do you get the quote in that cool blue box?

[podfish]

Hmmm...how do you get the quote in that cool blue box?

[QUOTE]blah blah blah [/QUOTE]

gives the box. Don't forget the [/QUOTE]

.. You aren't going to somehow cunningly fit the particles of your body in between those of the chair just by grokking more thoroughly.
...
Prove it.

it's a theory based on a preponderance of evidence. New understandings of how the fields between particles work may offer a new strategy. Evidence without understanding works too - if I see someone embedded in a chair I think a new theory would be in order!!

[arthunter]

Scott,

Unlike gang stalking where you have thousands of people all reporting the same thing, verifiable law suits, a retired FBI agent submitting a signed affadavit regarding it's existance, a DOJ stalking report verifying it's existance, law enforcement verification, and several mainstream news reports reporting the practice,

https://gangstalkingismurder.wordpress.com/gang-stalking-f-o-i-a-lawsuit/


the coverage of the Fukushima disaster is all over the place. My postings about Fukushima will reveal this as I've been careful to report on all points of view ... I don't know what the truth is about Fukushima ... do you?

Okay, this is something I completely agree with you about: that the Fukushima issue is the perfect example of how most of this conspiracy stuff on the internet works. Just probably not in the way you think.

Scott

[Barry]

OK, that's enough about gangstalking on this thread. You can call me part of the "gang".

Also regarding quantum physics and other dimensions, if the person is correct about the other dimensions, they should prove it (to Dixon's satisfaction) and be awarded a Nobel prize, if not it's just another conspiracy theory, most likely loony.

Let's get back to the quiz... Try following my example and comment briefly on each one theory you believe or not and give yourself a grade.

[Valley Oak]

Scott's post below is an outstanding observation that really nails it. Unfortunately, there is no "Super Gratitude" button to express the exceptional levels of truth and appreciation. Few posts are as accurate as this one. It was short and sweet, making it powerful.

This forum is overrun with "Person A's." It is often very frustrating (on this list) to try and talk to someone with very stubborn, uninformed dogma, such as the folks who vehemently insisted that Sandy Hook was a "black op" of the Obama Admin. Most of the folks on this issue piled up against me when I protested this grossly irresponsible and small minded delusion.

It's my experience that wild conspiracy theory claims are actually rarely challenged in this forum. And when they are challenged I have found the exchanges have often gone something like this:

Person A makes a public claim in this forum that is highly improbable and not backed up by solid evidence. (Maybe something like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where it was claimed in this forum that it was a "false flag" operation and all an elaborate conspiracy involving fake school officials, fake "parents", emergency responders, media, and many others, probably hundreds if not thousands all together, done by the Government or some sort of shadow Government, all so that Obama could get stricter gun control laws passed -- which apparently failed, by the way.)

Person B challenges the claim, maybe calls the idea ludicrous or something.

Person A then goes after Person B on an individual level, attacking them personally for challenging the claim, and thus taking things out of the realm of discussing ideas and into the realm of personal conflict.

My hope is that with these things we can keep the discussion on the ideas themselves and not make it personal (or take it personally). And maybe all lighten up a bit (that includes me too).

Scott

[arthunter]

Personally, in this age of disinformation and spin doctors I don't take anyone's word for anything ... if a subject interests me then I do my own research ... if I find strong evidence that a theory is true then I tend to believe it ... I look for reputable professional statements rather than amateur opinion ...

[Dixon]

Personally, in this age of disinformation and spin doctors I don't take anyone's word for anything ... if a subject interests me then I do my own research ... if I find strong evidence that a theory is true then I tend to believe it ... I look for reputable professional statements rather than amateur opinion ...

All that is just dandy assuming you research at least two sides of each issue. Do you make a point of seeking out the responsible skeptical viewpoints on each issue?

[Dixon]

Hmmm...how do you get the quote in that cool blue box?

Sara (and others who have the same question), just above the box wherein you type your reply, there's a toolbar that includes a symbol that looks like a stylized comic-book word balloon. If you highlight some text and hit that button, the highlighted text will be in the cool blue quote box. Don't forget that there's already a quote thingie at the beginning and end of the post you're responding to, so if the part you've highlighted is from the beginning or end of the person's post, you'll have an extra quote thingie at the beginning or end of the quote you're excerpting, so you must delete the extra one, just leaving one quote thingie at each end of the quote. You can try it and hit the "Preview Post" button to see how it looks without publishing the quote, for practice.

[podfish]

Sara (and others who have the same question), just above the box wherein you type your reply, there's a toolbar

raw HTML is more of a challenge...

[arthunter]

That depends, Dixon ... when dealing with theories which are inconclusive such as Fukushima then the answer is "yes" as my postings will reveal ... I look at every side of the issue ...

When dealing with issues which are proven ... i.e. Snowden and NSA surveillance ... no, I don't bother ...

What I'm saying is that it depends on the quantity and quality of the evidence that I find, and of course personal experience also plays a role ...

If at any time any one can post strong evidence to contradict the information which I provide, then I would be extremely interested and grateful ... I am trying to be of service to the community and it is not my intention to mislead in any way ...

All that is just dandy assuming you research at least two sides of each issue. Do you make a point of seeking out the responsible skeptical viewpoints on each issue?

[Dixon]

When dealing with issues which are proven ... i.e. Snowden and NSA surveillance ... no, I don't bother ...
What I'm saying is that it depends on the quantity and quality of the evidence that I find...

The Snowden issue may not be a good example in this context, because, AFAIK, nobody, not even the NSA, disputes Snowden's claims.

The quality of the evidence you find cannot be assessed without perusing the disagreeing viewpoints. It may turn out that what seemed like good quality evidence was just lies, hoaxes, misinterpretations, or plain old bad logic. There is no substitute for getting another perspective. Concluding, prior to seeking that other perspective, that your evidence is good puts the cart before the horse.

...and of course personal experience also plays a role ...

Relevant personal experience falls under the category of evidence, and our interpretation of the meaning of our experience is always subject to critique, as we could be wrong about what our experience implies.

If at any time any one can post strong evidence to contradict the information which I provide, then I would be extremely interested and grateful ... I am trying to be of service to the community and it is not my intention to mislead in any way ...

I believe you.

[Dixon]

...if one could see all the particles or waves of, say, a chair, and one's own particles as well, then maybe that person could see how to walk through the chair (or wall, or whatever).....

And if pigs could fly, we'd all need to carry heavy-duty umbrellas. "If" is a huge word.

Anyway, no eye is capable of resolving atomic particles without something like an electron microscope, and seeing the atoms doesn't allow the seer to walk through solid objects like chairs--sorry!

As always, the burden of proof is on the claimant, and I continue to await the "walking-through-a-chair" demonstration. If it is indeed possible, it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate; there are plenty of chairs around. In the absence of such a demonstration, why are people still talking about this as if it's a real possibility?

[Dixon]

P.S. Comic book characters who can walk through chairs, walls, etc. include the Spectre, the Vision, Kitty Pryde, and quite a few others. And the Atom can shrink down small enough to pass between the constituent particles of the chair! For those who enjoy such fantasies, I recommend superhero comics, which can be lots of fun when they're well-written and well-illustrated.

[geomancer]

P.S. Comic book characters who can walk through chairs, walls, etc. include the Spectre, the Vision, Kitty Pryde, and quite a few others. And the Atom can shrink down small enough to pass between the constituent particles of the chair! For those who enjoy such fantasies, I recommend superhero comics, which can be lots of fun when they're well-written and well-illustrated.

It's not the nuclei, it's the electromagnetic bonds between them that keep solid objects from passing through each other. The particles in gasses and fluids do not have such bonds.

Richard

[Dixon]

It's not the nuclei, it's the electromagnetic bonds between them that keep solid objects from passing through each other.

Don't tell The Atom that!

[kpage9]

just so delighted to see the excellent verb "to grok" deployed anew.

the problem with that is in the assumption that if you just saw more, or knew more, you'd have more actions available to you. That's not the case. You'd just have a deeper understanding of nature and reality - you wouldn't suddenly see tricky ways around its laws.

kinda like the difference to a child: for a long time, you just are given "because I told you so" as a reason for the rules around you. Later, you (hopefully) understand the motivations behind the rules.
then again, sometimes you do find out that the rules given weren't as inviolable as you were led to believe!! but I think the interactions of particles and their fields at the gross level that gives rise to 'solidity' and 'gravity' are pretty well understood. You aren't going to somehow cunningly fit the particles of your body in between those of the chair just by grokking more thoroughly.

[arthunter]

I get what you're saying Dixon, but I don't quite agree ... personal experience when added to many other cases of identical personal experience carries a bit of weight ...

For example ...

Recently one of our members spoke out about police surveillance which seemed extreme ... I think that she talked about police waiting for her at several destinations ... another member wrote about police corruption which she had witnessed first hand ... I relayed my experiences of police harassment ... now anyone of us could have been labelled "paranoid" but none of us were ... the information was accepted and discussed because there were several of us complaining about this at the same time ...

Then stories started to appear about police presence around town and that was questioned and discussed ... and then the shooting of an innocent child ... and then media stories about America possibly becoming a "police state", ... a progression of thought based on common experience ...

I think that when you have a whole lot of people experiencing the same thing at the same time then you should pay attention ... when this happens you are beyond the realm of personal interpretation of events and into the territory of "collective experience", and that to me is a whole different ball game ...

The Snowden issue may not be a good example in this context, because, AFAIK, nobody, not even the NSA, disputes Snowden's claims.

The quality of the evidence you find cannot be assessed without perusing the disagreeing viewpoints. It may turn out that what seemed like good quality evidence was just lies, hoaxes, misinterpretations, or plain old bad logic. There is no substitute for getting another perspective. Concluding, prior to seeking that other perspective, that your evidence is good puts the cart before the horse.


Relevant personal experience falls under the category of evidence, and our interpretation of the meaning of our experience is always subject to critique, as we could be wrong about what our experience implies.


I believe you.

[sharingwisdom]

Physicist, John Wheeler (now deceased), probably would have found your label-box of calling him New Age more than interesting. What you refer to as subjective reality around the chair is completely subjective to me along with the many who I respect in their expansive awareness of energy. And since I will be teaching a 3 day workshop starting Friday on these principles of shifting atoms and molecules in the body for the purposes of healing, which acupuncture does as well in its philosophy and understanding of energy, I need to keep my time and focus where its most received and understood.

Contrary to the claims of many New Age types who are selling stuff based on ridiculous claims about quantum physics, quantum physics has no effect on our experiences of objects on the human scale such as chairs. I'm not sure I'm understanding you right, but if you're claiming that some people can pass through solid chairs, I'm very, very skeptical--but I'd be pleased and delighted to have you or anyone prove me wrong; contact me and we'll get together for the demonstration. I'll even bring the chair if you wish.


On the contrary, claims about objective reality such as the solidity of chairs are indeed right or wrong--or in some cases maybe partly right and partly wrong. And such a belief may indeed be delusional, in which case it's no insult to call it such, as long as we've been willing to consider the evidence first.


Sometimes. And sometimes the converse is true: there's less to it than meets the eye.


You're most welcome. And thank you for sharing your thinking.

[Dixon]

Physicist, John Wheeler (now deceased), probably would have found your label-box of calling him New Age more than interesting.

If you're a John Wheeler fan, you might be interested in this passage from the Wikipedia article on him:
"...Wheeler spoke to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), asking it to expel parapsychology, which had been admitted ten years earlier at the request of Margaret Mead. He called it a pseudoscience, saying he didn't oppose earnest research into the questions, but he thought the "air of legitimacy" of being an AAAS-Affiliate should be reserved until convincing tests of at least a few so-called psi effects could be demonstrated."
So I'm guessing that Wheeler would laugh at your claims about acupuncture (below), etc.

I'm also guessing that you cite Wheeler because you like his Participatory Anthropic Principle (the astoundingly self-centered and grandiose notion that matter itself depends on a conscious observer for its very existence). Perhaps you're one of those who love to assume that's true because you think it supports the validity of various New Agey "healing" claims. Did I guess right?

Well, listen--invoking the argument from authority is dicey enough as it is; if you're gonna do that, you have to go with the consensus in a branch of science. You can't pick out one or a few maverick physicists and say "He says it's true and he's a famous physicist", ignoring the fact that nearly all physicists disagree with him. That's like saying "Doctor So-and So says tobacco won't hurt you", ignoring the consensus of other medical experts. It's dishonest to cherry-pick your experts that way.

What you refer to as subjective reality around the chair is completely subjective to me along with the many who I respect in their expansive awareness of energy.

That sentence is unintelligible. Did you mean to say "objective" instead of that first "subjective"? Let's be clear on the fact that a real chair (as opposed to an imagined one) is indeed objective--it's an object. And the claim that someone can actually walk through a chair (as opposed to imagining that they walk through it), is a claim about objective reality. It's an easily testable claim, so anyone who makes it should either demonstrate it or admit that it's not true after all. This is an honesty and open-mindedness issue.

And since I will be teaching a 3 day workshop starting Friday on these principles of shifting atoms and molecules in the body for the purposes of healing, which acupuncture does as well in its philosophy and understanding of energy...

Oh really? I think if someone really demonstrated that, they'd get the Nobel Prize.

...I need to keep my time and focus where its most received and understood.

Are you saying that you can't spare one minute to walk through a chair for me, thus turning me into a believer and supporter of your claim? I guarantee you that such a demonstration would be well-received and understood by me. It's time to "put up or shut up", as they say. Can you pass through a chair or not?

[sharingwisdom]

I think your point, Chris, if I'm understanding you, is that your example was to show a grounded and verifiable reality for that time.

For clarity, I didn't say that there weren't different sectors of group consciousness which didn't do some things that were not in the highest and best interest of all concerned. What I said was, "there is a pattern of incidences or similarities that emerge, and with research and enough people bringing forth information that is verifiable if actually read or listened to, who have either had the experiences or recognize the patterns,..." It was about how group consciousness can form that allows for ideas and awareness of individuals who think outside the box, to be shared in a positive, supportive way.

In your example, the villagers didn't find the similarities.. it was whoever and whatever the patriarchy/town officials (who were male) or the church fed them as truth. That created a forced and manipulated group consciousness. The level of education and the level of control those villagers lived under didn't allow for discernment. The peasants couldn't read in those days. Many women were set up as vendettas to just keep them in order, to keep them submissive, under control. Those who looked into it, (as passed on the historical stories) realized that the women were innocent (like sometimes their families shared it down the lineage) but feared if they spoke up, they would be next in line with whatever accusations were brought forth. Over 6 million women were murdered. Many weren't practicing herbs. There is a difference between mob mentality brought forth about through institutions as group consciousness, and the forming of a group consciousness that uses discernment through a free flow of independently researched information that does no harm...which is essential, and that was an aspect of what I was sharing.

Seems to me that the FDA and CDC do similar in their tactics as the town officials and church did then.

And I liked your quote about sanity and fugitives...objective reality... which the rest of my writing was about. Thanks for sharing another angle though it's not how I see the application in what I wrote.

In late Medieval Europe, humans didn't have a knowledge of the science we now know. Unexplained mysteries, like the discovery of and new use for an herb, were feared and deemed sorcery. Those who practiced this 'sorcery' were called witches, and were tortured, banished or executed. In many cases, these experiences, like witnessing a woman using a new herb to create sorcery, happened over and over until there was an established pattern of incidences or similarities. Villagers were able to quickly identify these similarities and flushed out the dreaded witches. Enough people brought forth information that was verifiable... so there was grounded validity, and thus was mounted a massive witch hunt. At the time, their way of dealing with what was happening seemed so sensible. The group consciousness of that time was, of course, correct. (Musta been... after all, there are no more witches there.)

It has been said in some circles that sanity is a question of agreement. Other circles warn, in a world of fugitives, those running away appear to be the fugitives.