I think there is a unified vibrational field of energy that co-exists in all things, all places, and all dimensions as the base (originating) vibrational pattern of energy. I believe that everything exists because it holds a specific and distinct vibrational pattern that remains connected to, and powered by, the original source pattern of frequency (vibration) - the template of origin from which it emanated. I find this worldview compatible with Barbara Dewey’s “Consciousness and Quantum Behavior: The Theory of Laminated Spacetime Re-Examined” and Rob Bryanton’s "Imagining the Tenth Dimension: A New Way Of Thinking About Time, Space And String Theory."
All else that is distinct from the base or original pattern of existence exists distinctly as an incorporation of a modification to that base pattern, which continues to source the modification while maintaining Its own purity of energy pattern (frequency).
All this exists in movement – which I believe is a pre-requisite for frequency existence, and that time is the product of any modification (change) to every pattern of energy. That is, shifts in continuums of energy patterns create time.
I believe that the distinctness or separateness can be eradicated by consciously shifting focus from the modified pattern of original frequency to the contents of its umbilical cord - the base (originating) vibrational pattern of energy, and then uniting with that originating energy. By adapting intent after union, it is possible to “jump” to a dissimilar template (pattern of energy) including dimensions, even time.
Some templates of distinct frequencies can create other vibrationally distinct templates (how ideas are created). Patterns of energy possess greater or lesser form – depending on their frequency, which may or may not be testable by current scientific or technological modalities. This does not preclude the possibility of their existence, or the reality of their existence.
In support of my untestable and less accepted take on reality I go to DKJ’s post on The Daily Phlog, (CR) "My Take on RC", from which I have liberally extracted his words and hopefully, correctly represented his ideas.
#8.“…Our thoughts are true when and if they correspond to the way things are.”
#10. “…Given the arbitrariness and diversity of our conceptualizations, the world determines but never guarantees our access to truth. We may rarely, if ever, be right about the world…”
#11. “Appeals to science and commonsense…are used fallibilistically and hypothetically to provide evidence in favor of a more robust realism that posits the mind-independent existence and nature of the many objects and relations of everyday experience.”
My worldview is the result of my perceptions and experiences, many of which are untestable by current scientific methods – a fact that, of and by itself, does not necessitate the diminishment of, or require the relinquishing of, my worldview. Being of sound mind, I can not in good conscience automatically presuppose science tests, or lack thereof, are superior to my perceptions and experiences, therefore I can not grant greater credence to their incapability to test over my capacity to perceive, experience and wonder. New experiences or perceptions (including scientific evidence) can shift my worldview if, and when warranted.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Interesting post. You write:
"New experiences or perceptions (including scientific evidence) can shift my worldview if, and when warranted."
If your new experiences can include scientific evidence (repeatable, generalizble, observation-based claims), then how will you adjudicate between its recommendations and your more private, subjective impressions?
Post a Comment