Hob
|
Re: How about
Sep 11, 2003, 16:58
|
Extreme dowsing. Heh!
Dowsing cliffs whilst absailing/bungey-jumping?
Olympic standard of course.
|
morfe lux
|
|
|
I propose fundamentalist underwater dowsing for real hardcore advocates!
|
Hob
|
Re:underwater!
Sep 11, 2003, 17:12
|
"Wait I,m getting something... Blimey! It's everywhere! I'm in tune today!"
Long live Atypical Dowsing.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: $1,000,000 Challenge
Sep 11, 2003, 17:13
|
Good worms. Nothing is provable, all may be illusion. So, for working purposes only, let’s say we exist and at least some of science is truth. On that basis, neither the rest of science nor the paranormal are provable by the bit of science we’re arbitrarily choosing to rely upon, and are thus of equal status, unprovable.
So a scientist has no right to say the whole universe is governed by the laws of physics. Much of it may be held together by mystical ley lines, how would he know?
|
GordonP
|
Re: give me
Sep 11, 2003, 17:29
|
|
Cheers morfe, and may your God be with you too.
|
morfe lux
|
Mystical
Sep 11, 2003, 17:34
|
Is a word that turns people off, because A: It has been used and abused for years by charlatans and religious nuts as an attempt to keep people in awe whilst sleight of hand did it's dirty work (hmm, sounds like politics and big business). And B: It's etymologically bound to 'mystery', which has negative connotations in the current climate of thought. I refer the gentleman to 'Anam Cara' by John O' Donohue, a work which although abhorrent to many who would say that it lacks hard science, nevertheless, at the very least, it illuminates the better sides of the 'spiritual' experience and places it in context in a modern world that illumines everything by flourescent light saying that 'THAT' is the way to view things. Science can take forever ever to tell us how to think, whilst we forget about *being*.
I refuse to live in a black and white world when people are telling me to, especially when there's so much delicious vibrant colour and shadow in the human experience of the natural world.
|
baza
|
A dowser`s perspective
Sep 11, 2003, 17:51
|
I like Ian Honeywood`s site:
http://www.sover.net/~ihoneywo/
Don`t know what to make of it (and he doesn`t seem to, either) but I do find it all......intriguing.
|
Hob
|
Re: Mystical
Sep 11, 2003, 17:56
|
It's good to know that there are folks in't world who are prepared to hold a balanced view of mysticism and science. There seems to be quite a bit of it about on this tma forum thang.
If you're a "trained" scientist then if you've got an iota of insight you soon realise science is still a form of belief system despite efforts to the contrary.
Keep that balance.
Hob
And I don't use emoticons but 8^)
|
morfe lux
|
Language and the eye:
Sep 11, 2003, 18:05
|
The phonological ambiguity of the English word for our organ of vision with the word for our individuality is deeply meaningful, as anyone can tell by replacing the one for the other in many contexts. Here, O'Donohue tells us about the materialistic or scientific eye (or "I") that must judge everything it sees:
[page 63] The judgmental eye harvests the reflected surface and calls it truth.
John O' Donohue, Anam Cara
I couldn't put it better, however, it reflects my understanding of the nature of looking.
|
Moth
|
Re: DOWSING
Sep 11, 2003, 20:17
|
Wow.
Thanks for sharing that with us - whatever it was that worked worked for YOU & that's a GOOD thang!!! Long may it last!!!
love
Moth
x
|
