http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tlai/AndOtherEss … 20MET.html

The main thesis is that the scientific method is about following clues more than conjecting or refuting theories.  A clue isn't just a piece of evidence that leads us to something new, if properly used it reinforces itself by leading us to new clues creating a feedback loop. 

Scientific method tells us not only to follow clues but develop new clues from old. To develop new clues we apply the hypotheses we have already advanced. We see this happening in science. In scientific research the hypotheses we advance do not retire to the sideline once we have determined they are likely to be right. Instead, whenever relevant they are employed in developing new clues. This is to say, there are feedback loops (positive) in the clue-following process. The more often a hypothesis participates in this loop, the more likely to be right it is. If it were wrong it could not have produced new clues over and over again. That there are these feedback loops in the clue-following process is the reason why we can have so much confidence in the so-called established theories in science. These are the theories scientists have used over and over again in analysing those situations which have produced new clues. If these theories were wrong, the later theories would simply not have been there because they would not have been proposed.

The abduction process sounds very much like this at first glance.  The main idea being that you start with something that represents some hypothesis or future knowledge and then determine if it reinforces itself by leading to new clues.  Sounds like a good description of resonance

Anyways, fun stuff for sure!

That's why the babbler is there, so you do forget, and think that it has to be physically sensed phenomena, in order for it to be validated. Maybe the ‘babbler’ is what don Juan was referring to, when he said, ‘they gave us their minds‘.

Zact-A-Mundo

>>>the foreign installation<<<

A Current Prime Example:

The Recent DreamLand with Jay Weidner:

First half, YOU Hear The Dreamer Speak.

Second half, blablablablabla.....

As Inner Silence Unfolds

F R E E D O M

And The Virgin Future

Of OUR Dream

These ideas seem very important to me. I have been thinking along some of the same lines without any of the vocabulary to describe it. But... there is such an emphasis, which seems like a backlash, on tradition, traditions, back to basics and all that, but are these really the basics? Tradition seems like a prison to me, from which nothing new can ever be created. Also, many different ethnic groups do not want their concepts, wisdom teachings or rituals taken out of context, but again, if nothing is ever taken out of context, how can anything new ever be created? We can't create the future to change the past and present if we are always stuck in the past (tradition). While many of us, including me, do not want to open ourselves to E.T. energies because they seem parasitical and invasive, unless we connect with a cosmic consciousness that is not bound by (earth) history and reasoning how can we affect this robotic merry-go-round with change?

Traditionalists would say that there is nothing new under the sun, that truth exists in the eternal present and that because the Tradition has been around so long, it has had time to accumulate those eternal present truths while shaking off those fashionable non-truths that change through the ages. So they compare the stupidity and fickleness of "new" with the solid foundation of the "old." But I think they are comparing the good of one thing to the bad of another, and therefore making a misguided value judgment. Sure, tradition has its share of treasure that should be acknowledged and put into practice, but that extreme kind of conservatism ignores the fact that the value and application of something does depend on its context, and context changes with the circumstance and purpose of an age.

Take for instance the gnostics... What makes the gnostics necessarily better than the top notch researchers, intuitive thinkers, and channelers of today? In fact, I bet those gnostics are reincarnated today and carrying on their original work in a better and more accurate form. Why should their work today be limited, dismissed, or squeezed back into their views from centuries ago, rather than being expansions upon them?

Aliens are thought to be physical beings from other planets by the modern secular "profane" UFO researchers, while the traditionalists shake their head and recast aliens as "really" being demons, Jinns, or Archons. I don't agree with either the secularists or the traditionalists. Both only have a partial view of a bigger picture that is beyond their willingness to acknowledge, and that bigger picture is the hyperdimensional one. From one view, the hyperdimensional stuff follows occult rules. From another view, it employs technology. Both are right. If one only sticks to the Traditionalist interpretation of the UFO phenomenon, only the occult interpretations, one will miss out on the aspects of portal technology, implants, soul frequency, realm and timeline dynamics, the hybridization program, technological frequency control, and methods to combat these. If one sticks only to the materialist view, pretty much the same result. You can't use the faults of one ignorant system to justify the complete acceptance of its "opposame."

So I agree with you... there is still new stuff to be learned. Even the perennial truths can be interpreted in a new expanded, more accurate context. What is truly perennial is the pure essential archetype, the very idea itself, but archetypes are nothing unless expressed, and the expression depends on the circumstance... circumstance varies, thus the expression of the archetype varies. It's an essential truth that there are invisible predatory beings, and while they were once understood as Archons, now we can understand them even better with modern research. Worse is traditionalism without an ounce of gnostic or intuitive insight, where the old is quoted and reasoned from just because it's supposed to be "time-tested" -- why not also reason-tested, intuition-tested, personal-experience-tested?

Yes, the intuitive or "pure" thinking is probably it (or at least going in that direction). Eric Pepin from the Higher Balance Institute talks about it as well, a type of thinking that is not chained down by the limitations of the physical brain. The best explanation I have heard comes from Steiner... some place (I cannot find where) he talked about the physical brain versus the etheric brain, and that in this higher thinking the etheric brain decouples from the physical, and in this way it can do all this superthinking. Eric Pepin refers to it as nonthinking, not the cessation of thought, but the absence of the internal babbler and linear forms of thinking, where thoughts are comprehended and worked out nonverbally in a very nonlinear way. Maybe that leads into Castaneda's "inner silence" and "second attention."

I think anytime you are contemplating a mystery or paradox and for a brief moment intuitively receive the answer in its initial nonverbal and nonvisual form, that could be an example of higher thinking that does not originate in the physical brain because it's an act of creation and the physical brain, being a mere machine, cannot create.  We ourselves experience this in our lives, and these glimpses prove it's possible. It's just a matter of finding and practicing a reliable method for entering into that state more often.

These ideas seem very important to me. I have been thinking along some of the same lines without any of the vocabulary to describe it. But... there is such an emphasis, which seems like a backlash, on tradition, traditions, back to basics and all that, but are these really the basics? Tradition seems like a prison to me, from which nothing new can ever be created. Also, many different ethnic groups do not want their concepts, wisdom teachings or rituals taken out of context, but again, if nothing is ever taken out of context, how can anything new ever be created? We can't create the future to change the past and present if we are always stuck in the past (tradition). While many of us, including me, do not want to open ourselves to E.T. energies because they seem parasitical and invasive, unless we connect with a cosmic consciousness that is not bound by (earth) history and reasoning how can we affect this robotic merry-go-round with change? Do you think that there is a type of thought and communication that has nothing to do with the brain and nervous system? Might that be something that is coming to be, so to speak? It is hard to even imagine because I have no concept of what that would even be like. I think that the intuitive thinking, and sense-free thinking such as druid talks about in the Anthroposophy stuff could be a precurser to that, but ultimately it goes much further than that in an unimaginable way. Kind of like John the Baptist preparing the way for Christ, not to go all biblical, but... Thanks to all on this thread and input-lala

From something Pierce wrote:

I totally agree with this guy. Quantum physics wasn't known in his time, but abductive reasoning is the internal mental analog to the external phenomenon of quantum wave function collapse, or to the future creating the past and present. Instead of going from some premise (past) towards a conclusion (future), a conclusion (future) is intuitively "felt" (in the present by focusing within) in order to hit upon an entirely new premise (of the past). Fun new thing to read about, thought I'd share it here.

My understanding was that the scary guardian and the being of light are one in the same.  The guardian simply reflects what is in your deepest hard and magnifies it, so if you are still holding fear or anger or guilt, then you meet up with one scary mutha, but if you have released that, then you meet up with your own love magnified.

Yet the way Steiner depicts them, they are clearly Two Guardians:
the first guardian is our double. Once we are finished with him, there is still another Guardian, but this is a light-being of inextinguishible radiance, a light-manifestation of Christ. More than 99% of us are still struggling with our own double. When we are finished with the ahrimanic double (first, lower one0, there is still a luciferic tempation of staying in the spiritual realms and not  wanting to come back on earth. This means we wnat to stay in the fuzzy paradise in the clouds, and drop all responsibility towards the earth. This is the luciferic temptation: stop reincarnating and stay as we have become, spiritually emancipated from our karma and Double, but then we stay imperfect because there are so much potentialities we aven't fructified and make others profit from them. Even when we're through with our double, it is our duty to make others benefit from our spiritual awakening and wisdom. If we just think about our own salvation and do not make others benefit from our individual spiritual evolution, we follow the black path of egoism. Many in priental practices fall into this trap. If we don't come bakc on earth and make others benefit from our spiritual evolution, we stay that way and the whole world will continue to evolve and pass us by. We will have mised the train of higher evolution. That is why the second Guardian stands there: he is there to show us that we must come back even though we think we have finished our Work. Making others benefit from or spiritual adavnce is the white path. (This is described in Steiner's book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds...).

About Steiner's writings: He said that he wrote precisely in a way to awake a certain spiritual experience. In other words, his books (not lectures) are written in order to make us experience the spiritual worls directly. Just reading it is already a spiritual experience. We are in the spiritual realms when we read his books with all requisite attention and spiritual effort (here meaning effort in using your spirit, thinking as a pure activity of the spirit). Sense-free Thinking as a spiritual activity.

Freedom in The Philosophy of Freedom is not meant as "I can do all I what", but Freedom as a kind of spiritual activity, actiovioty of the spirit. Spirit in action, freely exploring the spiritual worlds.  Nothing is spirtual if it does not free your spirit, where your whole self can become active and live, evolve, in freedom, this is, in itself, a spiritiual activity.

Then this is a form following function, or theory in practice, because the process of choosing to clarify intuition in order to develop free will is implicit in the way the book will be written. The reader is reading about the idea, but the way in which it is read causes a process which makes the theory an experiential reality. You seem to be really of the lineage of writers like Steiner and Gurdijieff  (I don't know much about the latter, I've never liked his work and I could barely get through two pages of " B's Tales to his Grandson.) who affect a change in consciousness through their writings, but you are a later generation of this type of writer, so your work will be technically more appropriate for post-modern spirituality. Sounds good, I hope that you find a good publisher like Greg Braden and others in the new consciousness studies field have, don't let your work get buried on the Internet!-lala

You may want to read Bondarev's big book on Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom. Bondarev is probably the greatest living Anthroposophical author, a Russian living in Switzerland. At one time he was head of the Russian Anthro Society, during the Communist era in Soviet Russia, underwent numerous interrogations by the KGB because of that role- his testings by fire-- only to be later booted from the Anthroposophical Society because of his--ahem-- radical writings. In my view, however, he carries forth in true Steiner spirit.

There is not too much of his work currently available in English. If you want a sampling from his Crisis of Civilization, you can find it here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/ … cerpts.htm

and chapters from that book here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/ … Ethics.htm

You have probably already read these however as I believe Druid has posted them on one of the boards.

I am in contact with Bonadrev's translator in England, and he is willing to send me the manuscript of his translation of Bondarev's book on Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom. Let me know if you are interested. It runs to something like 800 pages and what I have read of it so far is an excellent read and very clear exposition of the Philosophy of Freedom.

All the best,

Jeff

Ok, I am reading Theosophy from Steiner now, as it's one of his rare books in Turkish. Great book which takes human being from mineral body to higher spirit possibilities but this came some kind of "introductory" to me. So I'll begin Knowledge of Higher Worlds, especially this Guardian subject which seems very important - with Druid's extra links.

Tom, I'll await your book by the way.

Having read a little bit of Steiner years ago, I began thinking that some of his work is written in a circuitous fashion on purpose in order to reroute brain circuitry in order to create pathways from which you can understand his work, but not in the usual left-brain fashion. ya 'reckon?

That's right, this is supposedly what he intended to do with "Philosophy of Freedom." I suspect Gurdjieff had a semi-related goal when he wrote "Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson." But with Steiner, he did not want people to just read and memorize his works, like you would a straightforward textbook where you can just turn off your intuition and let your linear brain download the data to regurgitate later. So his writings required more of a "figure out what he means when he says this" approach, which would poke underused brain circuits into getting a workout. Apparently it's common for new readers to Steiner's work to have great difficulty in the beginning, but after sticking with it suddenly it clicks and they can't get enough of his stuff.

I don't like that technique though, to hide an important idea behind difficult syntax and sentence structure. Reminds me of another technique that uses difficult words and long sentences to make the reader work hard to get anything out of it -- Michael Topper is an example... you gotta use a dictionary to get through his stuff. If an idea has to be wrapped so that one must expend great effort to retrieve it, I would much rather prefer sentences that are so clear and simple as to be cryptically hiding a greater significance that you can only discern if you put effort into intuitively pondering it against the backdrop of your own experiences, reasoning, and insights.

The primary approach I use for my articles is to state conclusions without all the supporting experiential annecdotes, implications, or excerpts from correlative sources. This is done not only to be concise, but so that the reader, in merely coming across that idea, is cued into making a sudden realization about his or her own experiences, research, and insights... a realization that can lead to pondering the implications. This internal realization and pondering of implications would ideally follow the same process that occured inside of me to reach that conclusion.  Then the idea belongs to them as well, because they substantiated it within their own selves.

Having read a little bit of Steiner years ago, I began thinking that some of his work is written in a circuitous fashion on purpose in order to reroute brain circuitry in order to create pathways from which you can understand his work, but not in the usual left-brain fashion. ya 'reckon? Intuition-delusion+critical thinking=freewill, or something. This book that you are writing sounds fantastic-lala