I think his God Code is the bit that brought him the most flack. I have the book but have never been able to make it through. I know that since the 90s, an important part of the Braden presentation has been the 7 Essene Mirrors of Relationship. I am not sure when, but he began to study Neville and to me, this material fits right into the idea that our internal make up and specifically desires (feeling, emotion some say belief) create our experience, not in a cause and effect way, but directly through spirit. This New Thought tenet goes a bit beyond how our emotions influence or inspire those around us, as those around us as mirror would be reflecting our internal aspects to us. His material speaks more to other as us, and "reality" or our experience as an expression of God through us, or an expression of our relationship to God.
On Sep 14, 7:53 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13 Sep, 23:32, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 'He is falling into new age fundamentalism and equivocating between > > physics and metaphysics.' > > > Yes, I know he does this with regularity. But I think his > > fundamentalism is more along the lines of New Thought, than New Age. > > For me, there is a big difference, although you may not agree. > > > I can't pretend to know enough to argue the science with you. I do > > know that he bases his harmonic resonance and vibratory wave function > > as it relates to biomedicine on Oschman, Chu and Rubles. I know that > > Braden and Bruce Lipton share their work, and this is probably where > > he makes his leaps. > > > I thought that his Matrix and its relation to what was once termed > > ether was likened to Pat's Calabi-Yau space, where the universe is > > uniquely and immediately responsive to us. Braden's idea that our > > emotions are what speak to this matrix or space is, I think, taken > > from the Neville teaching that feeling is what moves our desires into > > manifestation. And, you are correct when you say that this is a leap > > in metaphysics to physics. > > Not quite. The Calabi-Yau space would either: > A) expand through the ether WITH our space-time > or > B) remain outside both space-time AND the ether. > > And I can see arguments for both. From Braden's view, as I see it, > when we emote (that is, externally demonstrate our internal feelings), > we make changes in the universe through the medium of 'the Matrix'. I > would say that the actual mechanism FOR that may be in 'conscious > energy' moving through and in and back out of the Calabi-Yau space and > influencing other consciousnesses that are spatio-temporally nearby > and, potentially, through them, to many others in future history. A > classic example is the kind of feelings and actions spurned in people > who listened to speeches given by Martin Luther King (as a good > example) and Hitler (as a bad example). > > > I appreciate you taking the time, Justin, to note the lapse in > > coherence in his presentation. I do know what you mean and know it > > doesn't bother me as much as other people because I don't demand the > > rigid scientific method, even in the presentation of the ideas. I am > > excited to see folks attempt to bridge the gap between science and > > faith, physics and metaphysics. I find the Braden material, while > > lacking in total coherence, more coherent that much of the new age > > stuff being presented. > > I DO feel, though, that he dropped the ball a bit with the link > between the Sefer Yetzirah and DNA. He tried to link the 4 nucleic > acids to Hebrew letters but there are, in actuality, 22 amino acid > conformations (20 of which have been known about for many years, and > two only more recently), one for each letter in the Hebrew alphabet. > The link, I believe, is FAR stronger, but a very deep analysis needs > to be done before drawing too many conclusions. > > > As a side note, Las Vegas was big in the Remote Viewing studies, at > > the Desert Research Institute and UNLV. There is still much being > > studied about this, and, the military does still try to take advantage > > of its applications. I also thought that the Braden reference was > > probably a stretch in his attempt to connect the dots. I've had my > > own experiences which is probably why I was drawn to some of these > > circles. Without needing to know the science of it, I know it > > happens. Like spontaneous healing, it happens, and science catches up > > to explain why. > > > Thank you for considering the material. I know it isn't perfect. To > > me, it is less of a yawn than the science. > > > On Sep 13, 5:24 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, ok.... > > > > Let me review what I heard him say... its a little difficult for me > > > since I don't have a transcript so what I am doing is paraphrasing but > > > I am deliberately trying not to take what he is saying out of context > > > or otherwise distort it. What follows are not direct quotes: > > > > HE SAID:He is saying is that the science of today is showing us that > > > we are not limited by the laws of physics. Science is aligned with > > > ancient laws. > > > > RESPONSE: The science of today does in fact say that we are limited by > > > the laws of physics. In fact, a law of physics is by its very nature a > > > limit on what happens. It may be that now, due basically to the > > > uncertainty principle, that physics is no longer deterministic but > > > this does not in any way mean that we are not limited by it. In a > > > sense the metaphysical content of "ancient laws" is coming to be > > > realized. But remember all of those traditions are loaded with > > > fundamentalism also. We are not just "realizing" that what the > > > ancients knew is right. We are reinterpreting it in the light of > > > science and seeing its value and limitation. > > > > HE SAID: We are "beings of energy" and when we understand we realize > > > potential Everything about our conditioning on our limitations melts > > > away. > > > > RESPONSE:Well it is true that from a physical point of view our bodies > > > can be described as energy. But that is a gross oversimplification. > > > Look at electrons. They have energy. Look at photons. They have > > > energy. Saying we are all just energy is true in one sense but it is > > > *organized* and structured. The earth has energy too. So we are > > > "beings of energy" in the sense that our incarnate nature means that > > > our bodies have energy associated with them. But it does not mean that > > > our limitations melt away. That is where he is wrong. In fact it is a > > > limit. Jump out of an airplane. You fall. Down. Your body operates > > > according to the limits of physics. > > > > HE SAID: Now he is saying there are discoveries that are so new that > > > are not in textbooks but changed 300 years of history. > > > > RESPONSE: I know of no such discoveries. I mean, there was a > > > revolution in physics around the turn of the century but there are > > > lots of textbooks on this stuff. What discoveries is he talking about? > > > The current situation in theoretical physics as far as I know is that > > > there is a lot of data that doesn't fit the theory but they don't have > > > a better theory yet. The way he is characterizing it .... some new > > > discovery that is not yet out but is about to be... If there is such a > > > discovery where is it? > > > > HE SAID: Field of energy underlies our world that is a quantum > > > incubator that is where everything begins. > > > > RESPONSE: It takes a little bit of understanding to realize how simple > > > the idea of an "Energy field" is. Until one sees what it means one > > > cannot hope to understand how the richness of experience is not > > > captured in it. > > > > Basically its two words. Let's take the first. Energy. Here is a basic > > > idea of it. You start with a force field. Force is a vector. Just > > > think of it as an arrow. Now imagine an arrow at each point in space. > > > That arrow represents the direction that something will be accelerated > > > in and how much it will be accelerated. That is why we call it a > > > "force". Because it accelerates things. So there is a "force arrow" at > > > each point in space. Now arrows can be arranged in lots of ways. One > > > basic way is they can diverge out from some point. Another is that > > > they can point in concentric circles about some point. Physicists have > > > a way of describing the difference. One of the ways is called a > > > "divergence" and the other is called a "curl" and they mean basically > > > what you would think. ( I am being a little loose here and if you want > > > we can really get into the physics sometime. It is wonderful to see it > > > laid out all mathematically) The one that diverges has divergence and > > > the one that goes around has curl. If a force field goes around in a > > > circle then if you put something on the circle and tie it to the > > > center of the circle then it will just start to go faster and faster > > > around and around because the force field is accelerating it all the > > > way around to the beginning where it is now faster but then it starts > > > again and even faster. But it turns out if the force field does not > > > have a curl then you can define a number which is called the > > > "potential energy". That number can be understood by imagining a ball > > > rolling on a hilly surface. Imagine it starts at the top of a hill. We > > > give it a nudge and it starts rolling down faster and faster but if it > > > rolls back up another hill and gets to the same height that it was at > > > then it will again stop. That can be shown with a bunch of > > > calculations. They say that if there is no curl you can show that the > > > force is the gradient (gradient is like the slope of a hill. It points > > > down the steepest way) of a what they call a scalar field which is > > > actually ! the energy field. Its just a number at each point. Think of > > > a field as like a corn field. There is a stalk at every point. So a > > > number field will be a number at every point and a vector field is an > > > arrow at every point. Think of potential energy like height. Its a > > > number field like the height of a rolling plain at any point, or they > > > call it a scalar field. Its just the amount of force you had to push > > > times the distance you pushed to get it up the hill! > > > > So the higher it goes the more potential energy it has (the more you > > > had to push it) and also it turns out the slower it goes and the lower > > > it goes the faster it goes. Makes sense if you ever played with a > > > rolling ball. They are describing nature! Balls don't accelerate up > > > the hill. They accelerate down the hill! The zeroth law of physics! > > > The physicists also have a number they call the kinetic energy. That > > > is basically how fast its going. The > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
