posted April 18, 2013 06:07 PM            

I, perhaps, still "owe" you more of a response.

In the meantime, this quote appeared:

quote:

---

If any fantasy holds our contemporary civilization in an unyeilding grip, it is that we are our parents' children and that the primary instrument of your fate is the behavior of your mother and father... If we can so readily accept the Mother-myth, then why not another myth, a different myth, the Platonic one this book proposes? It cannot be the resistance to myth that makes us balk at the acorn theory, since we so gullibly swallow the myth of the Mother. The reason we resist the myth of the acorn, I believe, is that it comes clean. It is not disguised as empirical fact. It states itself openly as a myth.

~ James Hillman, The Soul's Code:
In Search of Character and Calling
Chapter 3 - The Parental Fallacy

---

posted April 19, 2013 01:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by heart shaped cross:
Abraham Heschel is one of the most respected intellectuals in recent history. Just because he confined his statement in that book within certain boundaries, does not mean that he has not searched.

---

Lack of information can be misleading.

And in the end, ones title does not make something true...not mystics, not artists,not scientists and not widely respected individuals since in the end all theories are meant to be tested and proven.

Problem is...the very fact he tried to simply live it and not understand it wholly mostly meant that person was not trying to prove the existence of any higher powers beyond the human mind since so many explanations could be.

If he succeeded in explaining the source for any powerful connection and explain it as a living fact then we could have some interesting content here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by heart shaped cross:
That is certainly true of many people, but the same can be said of so many laymen who like to think of themselves as scientists, but have never performed a double-blind study in their life. They, too, like to think they know everything and that, if something has not been published in the mainstream scientific journals, then it is not science. They fail to reflect that science, as it is practiced in our society, is not an ideal effort of objectivity, but, that it is rooted in a vast, multi-billion-dollar industry. You need to consider the entire infrastructure that determines where money for research goes. The scientific community is made up of individuals who need to make a living and support their families, and this alone provides a basis for bias. They need to publish, and they need to stay within the prescribed boundaries of their career path. When findings contradict the institutions funding the research, they are frequently dismissed and scrapped. When they challenge long-held theories, you can be almost certain the paper will not be published in the mainstream journals. Theories have a tendency to disregard anomalies. But anomalies have a tendency to add up, and undermine the theories. Every significant advance in the scientific community has arisen from the margins, and has faced powerful oppositions from the less than objective scientific community. I refer you to the Introduction of a work entitled: Forbidden Archeology

---

Ok several topics here.

Firstly, a man who deems himself a scientist but does not complete all the necessary requirements for a proper research; yet calls it legitimate, will eventually be discarded when several true additional researches will prove his claims otherwise.

Secondly, scientists are usually driven into the field for their idealism and passion and not for the causes of money, a thing you clearly understand as seen in previous posts, so that automatic "money bias" is not to be blamed on all scientists.

Also, scientists know well that all false theories are to be discarded in the end when found out, destroying the researchers name, which in my opinion prevent even more scientists from trying to "cheat the system".

And if we are talking about money, a successful research that enlightens humanity is often very kindly rewarded .

And then again.....aren't the people who spread their teachings of belief biased? Through their claims of bringing others to peace and to attunement with higher powers these teachers and mystics draw to them many followers, and most willing to feed on every word from the presumed wise one, so the the teacher can easily use his own wisdom to convince people to serve him in different ways (bring him money, kill for him, etc...).

Isn't that enough for someone who teaches faith to be biased? Yet I am somewhat sure that one of my answers will reappear soon

Thirdly, eventually it is known that the scientific community is not without its problems but in the end it does provide ground for solid research. And in the end since the "non-related" by product of the research is in the end an existing thing it is surely to be found several times in several reports, especially since many theories are tested over and over, and in the end will be added to current scientific knowledge.

Here the same can be said about religion actually, when priests who interpret the words of holy scriptures in ways that are not mainstream who end up unheard and un-followed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by heart shaped cross:
We are not talking about throwing analysis in the trash, nor stopping at the surface. We are saying that it is necessary, first, to understand what the image itself is saying, before trying to determine the worth or meaning of what is said based on an analysis of who is speaking, why they are speaking, etc. We are saying that it is possible to take analysis to excess. An artist's work cannot be entirely understood and evaluated on the basis of that artist's early conditioning, or the time and place in which they were creating their art. FIRST, the work itself must be seen for what it is expressing. When you look at a painting, you take in the entire painting as a whole. First, you allow yourself to be moved by what you see. Later, you may analyze the methods. You may dissect it and try to discover which colors were added in which order, or what the deeper implications of the work may be, or why this particular artist painted the work, and not another. All of that is fine, but you have to see the surface.

I'm a Scorpio. I know all about delving beneath the surface. But I don't disregard the lessons of Aries and Taurus, which teach us to be receptive at the most basic level to what is apparent. This is the substance of the quote you summarily dismissed, what that towering intellectual who you automatically assumed "never searched" was trying to make clear.

Thanks for listening with an open mind .

---

For what you wrote....I did not say that one should not view the surface of a subject....but you will have to search much deeper if you are to research it.

Quite the ego for a Scorpio.

And if to take your metaphor that "towering intellect" has saw the lessons of the 12 signs and decided we all should rather stay in the first 2 or 3 since that would be enough.

posted April 19, 2013 01:08 AM            

But I have little understanding of your motives for making it... are you interested in hearing others opinion? Do you seek to convert? Love intellectual debates?

Anyways I hope you are getting what you are seeking.

posted April 19, 2013 12:44 PM            

It's great to trade ideas like this!

quote:

---

Lack of information can be misleading.

---

Yes, that's true. I think he intended to prevent misunderstanding by explaining the limited scope of the work.

quote:

---

And in the end, ones title does not make something true... not mystics, not artists, not scientists and not widely respected individuals since in the end all theories are meant to be tested and proven.

---

Well said.

quote:

---

Problem is... the very fact he tried to simply live it and not understand it wholly

---

The quote does not say he tried to live it, only that he tried to understand the substance of the claim made by the prophets. For all you know, he was an atheist. I would suggest, though, that something cannot be wholly understood unless it is lived.

quote:

---

If he succeeded in explaining the source for any powerful connection and explain it as a living fact then we could have some interesting content here.

---

We can fill libraries with books which attempted to do just that. Heschel clearly believed that the first step toward understanding and establishing the truth or falsehood of these claims was simply to grasp what the claims consist of.

quote:

---

Firstly, a man who deems himself a scientist but does not complete all the necessary requirements for a proper research; yet calls it legitimate, will eventually be discarded when several true additional researches will prove his claims otherwise.

---

"Eventually" is the key word, here. In the meantime, he has bills to pay and mouths to feed. If his research is firmly planted in the mainstream, the likelihood is that his work will not be disproven by scientists working in the mainstream.

quote:

---

Secondly, scientists are usually driven into the field for their idealism and passion and not for the causes of money, a thing you clearly understand as seen in previous posts, so that automatic "money bias" is not to be blamed on all scientists.

---

I don't think they enter the field for the sake of money. I think they have a natural and human concern for their positions. They often have families to support, debt to pay off; insurance, mortgage payments, car payments, etc. They want to keep their jobs, and they will choose research projects which are not likely to put them at odds with the entities they depend upon. Yes, they dream of making genuine discoveries and significant contributions to their field. But they also dream of having a nice house, a nice car, and sending their kids to college. I'm not saying they are all bad or weak people. Most of them would not intentionally falsify their research, although many would. It tends to be at the higher levels where decisions are made to shelve or distort projects and results.

quote:

---

Also, scientists know well that all false theories are to be discarded in the end when found out, destroying the researchers name, which in my opinion prevent even more scientists from trying to "cheat the system".

---

When theories are discarded, and fault is found, it is not automatically assumed that the scientist was insincere in his work. One of the most beloved and accomplished scientists of all time, Sir Isaac Newton, said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." He paid respect to the scientists who came before him, and to what was best in the work they had done. Nevertheless, he advanced science by finding fault with their work and making corrections. Just as his own theories were often corrected by scientists in the following centuries. Still, those corrections might never have happened without his work. ""The errors of great men are venerable because they are more fruitful than the truths of little men." (Nietzsche)

quote:

---

And if we are talking about money, a successful research that enlightens humanity is often very kindly rewarded.

---

Yes, but more often, it is resisted and opposed, and sometimes it is not accepted within the scientist's lifetime. He may point out numerous anomalies in the prevailing theory, and produce a good deal of evidence to support his own theory, but his own work, even when accepted, may be dismissed as simply another collection of anomalies. It may depend on scientists who come later to prove that he was correct, or that his theory was worthy of serious attention. More likely, he will be laughed out of the field, and forced to forge a new path outside of the existing paradigms.

Paul Stamets is one scientist who discovered a safe, effective, and cheap alternative to chemical pesticides, which would revolutionize the farming industry. (You can see his presentation on TED Talks.) Large companies offered him millions of dollars for the patent. He refused, because he knew they would only bury it, since it threatened the empire they had invested so much into. How many scientists would have done that? According to Stamets, this happens frequently; a patent is bought and buried. The popular journals, which should report the discovery and validate it at the highest levels, have a "responsibility" to the companies which advertise in their pages (thus funding their publication), which have a biased interest in suppressing the discovery, and would withdraw their support of the publication if the discoveries were countenanced.

Stanislaw Burzynski, Ph.D is a biochemist who discovered a cure for cancer. He has been waging a court battle with the FDA for years in order to make his patent available to the general public. The FDA has declared his treatment nontoxic, but because they are loyal to many corrupt elements within the medical industry, they have done everything in their power to suppress him. Likewise, mainstream news outlets are prevented from sharing his story on account of the people who advertise with them (thus funding them). You can see a three minute excerpt, of a police officer giving testimony, from a documentary about his story here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bv-UxhKdg4

The full film may also be viewed on youtube. And you may be interested in the following documentary which provides in-depth analysis of how the medical industry falsifies its own results with respect to cancer treatment, as well as providing information and testimony on the effectiveness of alternative treatments. Naturally, you would have to investigate further in order to satisfy yourself as to the full legitimacy of these claims, but this is a fantastic place to start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPU2oVFfze4

Lastly, we have Dr. Peter Breggin, graduate of Harvard University, and former psychiatrist providing testimony about the conspiracy within the pharmaceutical industry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPx95sk7k1U

More information about that can be found on his website (breggin.com) and in the numerous books he has published about the largely unreported dangers of psychiatric medications and the falsifying of results which is standard practice in the industry.

I think this is enough for now.
I'll return later to respond to your other comments.

Have a beautiful day.

posted April 19, 2013 01:02 PM            

Hmmmm about the natal... we have moons in opposition exact XD might explain some things.

And its nice to see some cap risers here.

I see you have a very intellectually strong mars and it shows in our conversation

posted April 19, 2013 02:55 PM            

Please watch those videos -- at least the testimonies by Breggin and the policeman; they're only a few minutes long.

Uranus, the "higher octave" of Mercury, is the strongest planet, exalted by sign, by house, and by placement (most elevated planet in the chart - exactly conjunct the Midheaven), while being conjunct Sun and Venus, Parellel Sun and Moon, and ruling my Moon in Aquarius...

posted April 19, 2013 03:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heart--Shaped Cross:

Don't be in too much of a hurry to respond.
My Mercury/Mars often makes that mistake.

Please watch those videos -- at least the testimonies by Breggin and the policeman; they're only a few minutes long.

Uranus, the "higher octave" of Mercury, is the strongest planet, exalted by sign, by house, and by placement (most elevated planet in the chart - exactly conjunct the Midheaven), while being conjunct Sun and Venus, Parellel Sun and Moon, and ruling my Moon in Aquarius...

The Venus Conjunction is a handful.

---

I will see the videos before responding.

You do seem very strong on the uranian side but you have a touch of something beyond that.... you are different in your expression but you have something that i didnt see in no uranian.

I myself am a pluto dominant.

Pluto conjunct mars in scorpio, scorpio venus, pluto trine moon , pluto sextile uranus, pluto in 10th house with scorpio ruling it.

posted April 19, 2013 04:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by heart shaped cross :
The quote does not say he tried to live it, only that he tried to understand the substance of the claim made by the prophets. For all you know, he was an atheist. I would suggest, though, that something cannot be wholly understood unless it is lived.

---

then again sometimes trying the very thing on your flesh my have conseqences on your perception and might cause bias.

quote:

---

Originally posted by heart shaped cross:
"Eventually" is the key word, here. In the meantime, he has bills to pay and mouths to feed. If his research is firmly planted in the mainstream, the likelihood is that his work will not be disproven by scientists working in the mainstream.

---

yet in the end nature is nature and will remain so in the most controled invironments so even a mainstream research might find itself seeing that very same "unusual result" every single time untill researched in depth.

but yes i do get that waiting might be a problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doommlord:
don't think they enter the field for the sake of money. I think they have a natural and human concern for their positions. They often have families to support, debt to pay off; insurance, mortgage payments, car payments, etc. They want to keep their jobs, and they will choose research projects which are not likely to put them at odds with the entities they depend upon. Yes, they dream of making genuine discoveries and significant contributions to their field. But they also dream of having a nice house, a nice car, and sending their kids to college. I'm not saying they are all bad or weak people. Most of them would not intentionally falsify their research, although many would. It tends to be at the higher levels where decisions are made to shelve or distort projects and results.

---

well you saw for yourself that across history great people chose idealism over their own as**s and so managed to truly influence society and be remembered in history.

i know the majority will usually bend when the sound of money be heard...but then again the majority ware never those who reached greatness and opened out eyes to the great systems around us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by heart shaped cross:
When theories are discarded, and fault is found, it is not automatically assumed that the scientist was insincere in his work. One of the most beloved and accomplished scientists of all time, Sir Isaac Newton, said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." He paid respect to the scientists who came before him, and to what was best in the work they had done. Nevertheless, he advanced science by finding fault with their work and making corrections. Just as his own theories were often corrected by scientists in the following centuries. Still, those corrections might never have happened without his work. ""The errors of great men are venerable because they are more fruitful than the truths of little men." (Nietzsche)

---

i just went from an extreme perspective that the scientist outright lied in his research but i guess myabe a little moderation is needed for this discussion

quote:

---

Originally posted by heart shaped cross:
Yes, but more often, it is resisted and opposed, and sometimes it is not accepted within the scientist's lifetime. He may point out numerous anomalies in the prevailing theory, and produce a good deal of evidence to support his own theory, but his own work, even when accepted, may be dismissed as simply another collection of anomalies. It may depend on scientists who come later to prove that he was correct, or that his theory was worthy of serious attention. More likely, he will be laughed out of the field, and forced to forge a new path outside of the existing paradigms.

Paul Stamets is one scientist who discovered a safe, effective, and cheap alternative to chemical pesticides, which would revolutionize the farming industry. (You can see his presentation on TED Talks.) Large companies offered him millions of dollars for the patent. He refused, because he knew they would only bury it, since it threatened the empire they had invested so much into. How many scientists would have done that? According to Stamets, this happens frequently; a patent is bought and buried. The popular journals, which should report the discovery and validate it at the highest levels, have a "responsibility" to the companies which advertise in their pages (thus funding their publication), which have a biased interest in suppressing the discovery, and would withdraw their support of the publication if the discoveries were countenanced.

---

yes corruption is evident everywhere and it saddens to see how it corrupts each field....politics....religion..science...

funny thing is that both religion and science both fight and often preach greatly against corruption.