Archive for July 4, 2013
Thought for any Day
Jul 4th
“Behind the cliché that you create your own reality there is a shadow: If you don’t create your own
reality, it will be created for you.” Dean Radin “Supernormal”
I like Vadim Zeland’s ideas expressed in his Transurfing volumes. Perhaps the word create is too misleading. Perhaps it is better to say that you can make your reality. Vadim proposes that we can simply choose our reality by choosing a different life-path. He says, presuming that I understand correctly – forgive me Vadim if I don’t – that from the space of variations, where all possible outcomes from all past, present and future events exist, we can choose one more to our hearts desire. Vadim does not leave us in the space of hopefulness and details a method we can use to manifest this result.
I’m just weird enough to admit that I relate or believe this is true. Why, because I’m just crazy enough to have been using a similar method for years. I’ve also been crazy enough to state that we all, always get what we want. It is in the nature of being an Earthling that this is true. I continue to say that if you are not getting what you want, then there is a block and you are either fooling yourself by avoiding some basic facts about your life’s approach or you just don’t know what you want or maybe you are more comfortable holding on to those mechanisms that prevent you from changing your life because the state you are in has become a habit or brings you some benefit that you don’t want to lose. Whatever the case, if you are unhappy because of unrealized desires, then you must try to relax and dig down into your quiet spaces and look for what you might be fearing or dreading or avoiding. In a way, this state of constantly placing obstacles in the path of success is getting what you want isn’t it? In the digging down process, look for ways that you may be sabotaging your efforts to achieve.
There is no formula available. For instance, you may find that you will not allow silence into your life for more than a minute or so and thus you can’t access that quiet place within you. I suppose most unhappy people blame anything other than their part in their pathway. Unfortunately, if you don’t believe that you deserve to have what you want or believe that we shouldn’t expect to be happy or successful – that they have sinned or something – then of course, they will hold onto the path they are on.
Vadim’s first five volumes are published by O-books. Although Vadim is not a social worker or therapist you can have a look at what and how he approaches this subject for a mere fraction of the cost of a therapist. Perhaps a personal therapist would be easier and even more effective, however, for most, if you were going to avail yourself of their service, you would have done so buy now. Following is my favourite Zeland quote:
“The World is the Mirror of your attitude towards it”
A Fascinating Story
Jul 4th
A Fascinating Story
A comment
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/scientists-and-scholars-i_b_3543037.html
“The semantic and sociological issues in this discussion remind me of the frailties of peer review and what is considered to be a “mainstream” idea. A classic study on peer review, published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in 1982, did the following. The authors took “12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices. With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as ‘serious methodological flaws.'”
This simultaneously sad and funny outcome has not improved much three decades later, as this 2006 article indicates in an article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. It concludes that “Peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.”
Or, perhaps it’s not so odd after all, given that everything we know is ultimately rooted in one belief or another.”
Best wishes,
Dean Radin
Senior Scientist
Institute of Noetic Science