2012: Scienstition is transmutigrating (4non-Klingonz) into the reEmergent Supersentience GrawKnowsis ov Instacz-y-xs

Scienstition gets SuperIntuated x/y = appropriate/reducto-portionated sub-integration

nuf fun from a gobe tween

Mysterious is MUCH more appealing, and therefore worth more $$$$$.

With the others, living in a small community of like-minded people who share meals together is the best defense against psychic intrusion.

I kid you not

From Eisenstein's Ascent of Humanity

www.ascentofhumanity.com/chapter6-1.php

The mind of the primitive is often irksomely irrational to the Western visitor. I must admit having suffered the same annoyance in my early encounters with New Agey people who would (it seemed) taunt me with such statements as "It's true for you but not for me." I would say, "I believe that if 'qi' really exists we would have detected it with scientific instruments" and my friend would respond, "That belief is why you cannot detect it with your instruments." I would say, "I don't believe out-of-body experiences are possible," and he'd say, "Then for you they are not possible."

It was maddening. "I don't mean 'for me', I mean not possible for real."

"Then for you, it is not possible for real."

Aargh!

What I meant by "for real" was "objectively". One friend, the healer and musician Chad Parks, tried to explain a psychic invisibility technique taught him by some (to me) dubious New-age guru. People choose not to look at you or they simply don't notice you. "But surely if they looked, the light rays bouncing off your body would still reach their eyes," I said, "so you're not really invisible."

"To them I am."

A similar situation arises in one of Carlos Castenada's books, in which the narrator, trying to get a grip on Don Juan's shamanic powers, challenges him, "But what if someone was waiting in ambush on your path—surely you couldn't stop a bullet, could you?"

"No, I could not stop a bullet. But I would not take that path."

Castenada could have continued, "But what if the situation required you to take that path?" and Don Juan could have replied in kind, "Then I would not enter that situation."

In the prior example, I could have proposed to Chad an experiment: "Okay, make yourself invisible—I bet I can still see you." He would have said, "It won't work, I am already here for you." His invisibility is essentially untestable because the very grounds for objective testing embody a conflict of assumptions. It is testable only in an objective universe, and it only works in a non-objective universe. The whole idea of certainty of knowledge, built through objective reasoning, is only as sound as the objectivity at its basis. Question that, and we question the soundness of the entire edifice of experimentally-derived knowledge.

The reason that primitive and New Age logic seems irrational is that it is irrational. Reason, according to David Bohm's definition that I quote in Chapter Three, is the application of an abstracted relationship onto something new. A non-objective world defies such abstraction. If the world "out there" reflects in some way the inner world, then reason is but one of several cognitive tools for creating and defining our experiences. Reason is still a valid and useful tool; it is only when it becomes a reflexive habit rather than a conscious instrument that it is limiting.

Professional skeptics are fond of railing at the abysmal stupidity of their opponents, who seem dispossessed of that key function of higher cognition, reason. Like a fish unaware that it is wet, these critics rarely perceive their own immersion in assumptions of self and world that constitutionally limit them to certain narrow modes of cognition, those that we call rational. These are powerful in a certain domain, having enabled us to build the towering edifice of our civilization; they are behind the vast program to engineer the world and remake nature. As this program falters, we open to the possibility of other modes of cognition and relationship.

As quantum mechanics slowly replaces our Newtonian-Cartesian intuitions with those that are non-dualistic, all of the fruits of separation will lose their deepest rationale. For even if conventional philosophy is right that quantum indeterminacy and observer-dependence have no practical consequences for consciousness, mind, and self; even if no one ever proves that our level of matter departs appreciably from the classical description, there still lurks at bottom an implacable exception to the claim that "the universe is just like that." If only by way of metaphor, quantum mechanics confers upon us a new logic, a new framework of possibility. No longer will the discrete and separate self be the only conceivable, the only cogent way of understanding the world.

Quantum mechanics heralds a momentous shift in our intuitions that will rapidly accelerate as the failure of the old ways of life and thought becomes increasingly obvious. Just as the regime of separation both set the stage for, and was reinforced by, its apotheosis in the science of Newton and Descartes, so also will quantum mechanics quicken the emerging realization of our interconnectedness with each other and all of nature, which will in turn allow us to more fully digest quantum theory's profound ontological consequences. In other words, quantum theory is both a cause and an effect, a harbinger and a symptom, of a larger shift in consciousness.

Armed with the intuitions, or at least the metaphorical possibilities, that quantum mechanics foretells, the beliefs of primitive humans will take on a new vitality, relevance, and import. Already we feel their pull, as the popularity of "Native American spirituality" testifies. (That this form of cultural capital is rapidly coopted and converted into money does not alter the kernel of its appeal.) Already, we are becoming more willing to believe that our thoughts, words, and actions have a power beyond their classical physical description as a mere shifting of masses and flux of chemicals. Already we grow more at ease with the idea of a fluid reality, not separate and absolute, but defined by our relationship to it and molded by our beliefs. Little do we realize that the stage is being set for a wholly different science, and a wholly different technology, no longer based on the premise of separation and no longer reinforcing that premise. And no aspect of human life will remain unchanged.

during colubus' time... they were very superstituous. they thought that if they sailed far enough they'd fall off the earth.

i think that was science or something too.

what do you think hoopes?

J'uha, some of your assertions make no sense to me at all. Where is it documented by Levi-Strauss that "the indigenous people" did not see Columbus' ships? How would HE know? Columbus' ships went to lots of different places--the Bahamas, Costa Rica & Panama, even Venezuela--and were undoubtedly seen by lots of different indigenous groups. We know that they were seen because people came out to them in many different places. Columbus and his sons own accounts are readily available. Read them, and you'll see.

I haven't a clue how this "didn't see them" myth got started. The indigenous people of the Americas had dugouts, large sailing canoes, and balsa rafts. We know that because they painted and carved pictures of them, and they were reported by the Spanish and others. These kinds of craft were not "foreign to their sensibilities" at all. The claim that Native peoples didn't see the Spanish ships is totally implausible. Anyway, Levi-Strauss did his fieldwork in southern Brazil starting in the 1940s. Columbus never went to Brazil.

Just because "Maya" and "Mayan" are terms found in Hindu literature doesn't mean these terms have *anything* to do with the Mayan peoples of Mexico and Central America. Apart from Columbus' record of a visit in the Bay Islands of Honduras, when a chief described the people to the west as "Maia" and the people to the east as "Paia", there is no other mention of this term being used by indigenous people themselves. For all we know, these could have been directional terms (the language in which they were spoken is unknown, although it may have been in the Chibchan family). The "Mayans" didn't even call themselves that until the 1980s, when the Movimiento Maya became a significant political phenomenon. It is an external label applied by Europeans.

"Maybe a dozen authors many of whom were Mayan scholars all along."

Are you referring to the books on 2012? NONE of them have been written by profesional Mayanists, much less individuals who have been so "all along". All of the ones I know about to date have been written by enthusiastic amateurs whose critical thinking and scholarly skills leave a great deal to be desired. That includes Jose Arguelles, John Major Jenkins, Carl Johan Calleman, Geoff Stray, Daniel Pinchbeck, Barbara Hand Clow, and others. Most of these books have been published by Bear & Co./Inner Traditions, which is far from a scholarly press.

www.innertraditions.com

The books by Arguelles, Jenkins, and Calleman were *all* published under the editorship of Barbara Hand Clow, whose work is the kookiest of them all, and marketed to a New Age audience. (Lawrence Joseph's book contains minimal information on the ancient Maya, and has been marketed mostly with gloom-and-doom overtures, profiting from curiosity and fear--not to mention entertainment value.)

If your friend is seeking a publisher for her book on sacred geometry, Inner Traditions would be a good bet. They've got great distribution, which is good for sales.

I don't think any author undertakes a project without some passion for their subject. If your friend is enjoying her project, more power to her. If not, then she could certainly find some better things to do. If she doesn't care whether the book sells or not, why doesn't she put her scholarship on the web where people can benefit from it for free?

well...

people ain't generally super smart on all levels etc...

then there's that thing about at least half of society being below average intelligence...

then beyond whatever science is valid and available there is the question of the quality of life of the individuals concerned...

www.sign69.com/medialoung...ce1467.html
www.sign69.com/medialoung...ce1366.html

so Hoopes.... when you state that all this 2012 stuff is either;

A. Entertainment
B. Religion
C. Financial gain
D. All of the above

i'd have to say i'm here for the A. Entertainment of it all with a boost of B. religion and perhaps wondering how i might just C. cash in on it all.

what are you here for Hoopes?

besidesthehugs,

d

what is a conspiracy theorist hoopes?

there is the loop hole... right there. plain as day. hoopes, as bill o'reilly says, "what say you?" is this constitutional? is it open to abuse? could this be where all this gearing up is coming from? NORTHCOM?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...rn_Command

"....USNORTHCOM headquarters has approximately 1,200 uniformed and civilian members, and few permanent forces. Forces from all branches of the U.S. military may be assigned to the Command as needed to complete its mission."

wasnt blackwater contracted to deal with "katrina"....without a bidding process?

"since when did you get involved in conspiratorial theories juha?"

Do we know each other Mia?

"knows quite a bit about astrology."

I have been learning a bit. I still don't know what 'Plutonian' means though just this evening I learned what an empowered Uranian means! There are systems, symbols and principles an I am not aware of all of these pieces.

oh, the locals know the pecking order
even state
the federal government is an entity within itself; plus, it controls ALL
sure, many want/need it different
ain't gonna happen.
mia? the blue, where?
mia, you are somewhat aware of the weapons they possess.
and more you cannot see in your worst nightmare.

it was not too long ago dju and i and another figured out how the weapon worked that took down the 35w bridge in mpls mn
not easy, not fun. so we slice/dice each other a little; big deal.

KEEP THE FAITH; BUILD THE HEALTH