|
In trying to decipher this, this is what I've
come up with.If I understand Hugh L.'s point here I assume he's referring here
to information as intent and ability to connect to resonant life force
patterns found at a particular location, and power as substance
manipulation without regard to qualities and context. Thus, homeopathic
potencies might vary depending on site conditions and the thought forms of the
applicator as well as the characteristic of the pest or insect being treated
against. Is this another version of "The without is like the within, the small like the
large"?
>Dave,
>
The last part of my email consisted of my original brief notes and
>a
recipe I started with. Because this was my first time at making
this
>potentised pepper I had to try different potency until I found
which one
>worked. D15 seems to be the one that works.
> To
answer your other questions. As with all potentised preps a
little
>goes a long way. You don't have to potentised the whole tank
full. The tank
>fully of water is only used as a carrier for the
potentised pepper so that
>it can be spread thinly and evenly over the
crop. Of course make sure the
>potentised liquid is mixed well in with
the tank water.
>
>Peter
Dear List Readers, (and
please someome send me the info to resubscribe to SANET, as this post should
go out.)
We seem to be laboring under two different paradigmal ideas.
One is that the medium conveys something of power--which it does. This is
expressed in the inverse square law where the potency diminishes in the
inverse square of the distance from the source.=Light and its behavior from
source, dispersing to the extremes, etc..
The other paradigm, too
often obscure, is that the medium conveys something of information.--which
it does. This is expressed in the fact that once an insect steps in a spider
web it is caught, and the whole game plan changes from that moment from one
side of the medium to the other.
Modern computing shows just how
dependent we are on the informational status of what we think we have
in our computers as power.
RETHINK
We must
never forget that all of nature conforms to the same laws as prevail in our
computers and in our (outdoors) fields. I grow spinach, lettuce, fine
herbs. How do they know to be so exquisite, so robust, with so little
rainfall!? I'm programming this information in, non-verbally, of course. I
don't know how finely I can do this but very, very equisitely, I'm sure. We
all do this to varying degrees.
Nature, as it happens, is intensely
informational, as is shown by natural responses to various homeopathic
potencies--which contain only patterns, nothing else of compelling power
more forceful than water!
With homeopathy we are not levering the
blocks of matter around with wedges of various force, but rather we are
coreographing the ballet of how woods meets right-of-way, and field rotates
with meadow, and how in the midst of this market gardens and neighborhood
dairies can exist--and, please, let's forget the idea that more
intensive regulations will protect us from the mega-dairy problems.That's a
comforting fiction for sophomores and freshmen. The real envronment
should be one we can live with one hundred years back and one hundred years
forward. We know people this old so we should require this of our
environmental standards.
In any event, we seem to be working with
both sets of beliefs, power AND information. Sometimes it seems like power
vs. information. I don't suppose there need be any conflict.
Is
there?
Well, there seems to be, and I think we are all guilty to
whatever degrees--don't set oneself up for sanctimony. I think this is an
issue worth looking at. We work everyday with both sets of beliefs, and
somehow that isn't causing major crises.
I sure had a lot of
difficulty with people understanding how I can put the map of a property
with it's boundaries drawn in the well of my field broadcaster and expect
the broadcast to conform to those boundaries as marked.
But is
there really any conflict? Maybe we can live with this as is, but I believe
we should start looking at every thing we deal with from BOTH sets of view
for while and see what suggests itself.
I invite responses of every
sort.
Several people have told me I should read William Tiller, a
physisist from Stanford, U. in this regard. But his book was sold out at
ACRES. I'll catch up onthis later. It looks like this is an overlooked
dichotomy that has kept a lot of folks wallowing in the swamps of
half-reason.
Best,
Hugh Lovel
|
