From: Steven Kaeser <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 13:35:59 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 19:19:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity Sean, Clark, and all- >Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:19:06 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >From: Sean Jones <email@example.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity >>From: "Clark Hathaway" <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <email@example.com> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity >>Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:42:15 -0700 >>There are a number of ingredients to this ... more than a few >>that would seem to the uninformed to be absolutely New Age. >New Age is an expression bandied about for when there is no label for >the "new" research/tools/experiments etc etc However, the label "New Age" is not limited to "new" research/tools/experiments,etc., etc. . . . One of the problems with "New Age" is that the concept that is communicated when that particular term is use depends heavily on the definition that each individual has developed. More often than not, the term is used to describe beliefs and theories that are very old, rather than "new". Terms that are not clearly defined merely leave additional room for dissention and disagreement. As you note, "New Age" has been bandied about by a number of people to provide a label for that which is not yet defined. Unfortunately, this has the effect of blurring the meaning of "New Age", which in turn makes meaningful communication more difficult. [snip] >>Extremely important to these endeavors are heightened intuition >>with a bit of practical trust in it and an expanded sight or >>sense of awareness. Of paramount importance is the inner knowing >>that we each individually, create our own realities and thus are >>ultimately responsible for what happens to us. >Thats a pretty big statement, would it perhaps have been easier to say >We are who we chose to make ourselves? I think that more accurately the statement should be "We believe that which we chose to believe" or "Our view of the reality around us is what we have defined it to be." >>An understanding >>that collectively, it is all of us by general consensus, that >>create the overall general appearance of what surrounds us at any >>given time. >Hmm don't you mean the masses provide the mean average? I'm not sure that's exactly the same thing. But, then again, perhaps I just have a hard time accepting "reality" as a "mean average". It's really not mathmatics, but the concept is similar. >>Another part would be at least the beginning of >>ability to recognize when a belief system no longer serves > >ie? Some tribal cultures (to this day) would have to go through a form of a paradigm shift to accept the reality of man landing on the moon. (IMHO) The strength of the belief structure would in turn help to define the level of evidence needed to for that "shift" to begin. In some cases, I would imagine that one might have to actually take the tribal leaders to the moon to overcome their "belief" that it just couldn't occur. (Again, IMHO) This is somehow similar to the response the bulk of the scientific community gives when provided with data that doesn't seem to fit their current view of the norm.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp