|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 10, 2009 13:39:55 GMT -1
rather than derail the current thread...
I believe that everything living has something akin to a spirit or soul, much like taking a bucket of water and filling a glass from it: for a time the glass holds onto some of that water. living things as far as i am concerned have got hold of some of that reservoir for the duration of thier life and upon death it all flows back to the reservoir which permeates the word around us.
the interaction of humans - i will stick to them for this because i dont know if animals can interact with it etc - with particular places act to focus and create something that was not there before - they can shape the spirit of that place into something recognisably "alive" or independant in itself; wights. continued interaction over a long period is where i think gods come from (as one source) - they are big glasses of water from the reservoir whcih are laregly independant and have a different perspective from us. the other place gods come from in my view is the continuance of human spirits after death. human interaction with the spirit of a deceased person can maintain it in its humanoid form rather than let it disperse. thus, ancestor worship gave rise to deities.
ritual to me is a way of joining in the dance of these gods and spirits, it need not serve any other purpose than to forge relationships between the peole involved and the gods whose dances you are taking part in. those dances change with the changing year.
as to why it is neccessary to join in that dance..... i find myself unable to convey at the moment. i will get back to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Feb 16, 2009 16:18:44 GMT -1
Ancestor worship and spirit of place seem to be core to what you believe.
The gods that call to you, do they stand alone, or are there aspects to them which others could agree upon? If so, then within ritual a common experience could be shared. A specific ritual could be related to a specific deity, this may prove a good way of people coming together and working in agreement.
Which gods/goddesses speak loudest to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Feb 16, 2009 16:29:16 GMT -1
I've been pondering this thread. My beliefs are not dissimilar from Lee's. My ancestors speak to me and guide me constantly with words, images, synchronicities and the occasional swift hard kick up the backside. They are a source of constant inspiration. Not in any abstract sense, but in a real, provider of inspiration, sort of sense.
I am also an animist in that I belief that the common denominator of existence is life, a root consciousness that is manifest as spirit through process. Spirit is indivisible at source yet we manifest individual spirit. This is not a supernatural principle, but a property of the manifest universe... either like a physical property such as the Planck constant or as an emergent property that is inherent in the very building blocks and natural laws...
I find it harder to talk about as I get older, because I find my beliefs getting progessively simpler :-)
If I am brought before Gods, it is by the living spirits of my ancestors. And the one that may be a God, is as far as I understand it, one of the oldest ancestors, though changed beyond easy recognition of humanity. And there I stand in the possibility of starting to be judged slightly bonkers ;-) and suspect that must remain UPG, as I have images only and no names.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 16, 2009 21:53:52 GMT -1
Ancestor worship and spirit of place seem to be core to what you believe. The gods that call to you, do they stand alone, or are there aspects to them which others could agree upon? If so, then within ritual a common experience could be shared. A specific ritual could be related to a specific deity, this may prove a good way of people coming together and working in agreement. Which gods/goddesses speak loudest to you? they are indeed, the gods too... but then i think they are all part of a spectrum; they fade into one another and arent really distinct from each other in a classification sense - gods as ancestors, ancestors as spirits of place etc etc i certainly think that in the main there are common strands other would recognise, though there will be others they dont but that i guess is the nature of an individual relationship with them. i really do think a meaningful and shared ritual arrangement is within our grasp. this is something i would like to discuss at the get together. as to which gods, at present: mokkonos has been speaking loudly though i think he will move away now till next winter. other than him; nodens, belenus and rigatona are where i am heading. then there is Blodeuedd. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 16, 2009 22:03:59 GMT -1
i have gone and lifted this straight from my blog, i had another go at explaining what i did in the first post but in a more coherent way (i really dont like that first post to be honest)
I see all existence as a stream, a slowly moving smooth surfaced ribbon of water in which the physical is the stream bed and the spiritual the water flowing over and with it. The surface of this stream is calm. No movement.
A living thing – a human in this instance – is a small pebble in that stream, rising just above the surface and causing ripples and eddies all around it. It is a meeting of the physical and spiritual, a lynchpin that pulls them both together for a short time. I think that this conjoining is the product of life itself, not necessarily conciousness. This I think largely because I think/feel that all living things are able to make this meeting of the two happen. Take the human out of the stream – they die – and the ripples fade out and the water resumes its stillness. I hope this is clear and makes a degree of sense so far.
On to spirits of place, wights and the like; I dont know if they exist as they are without humans getting involved. However, I see them as points in that stream where there are ripples and waves not caused by humans as such, perhaps points where the ripples from living things conjoin and are amplified and grow. Lots of people being drawn to them add their own ripples if only for a short time and as such perpetuate these points in the stream. These points are wights, spirits of place, genius locii and they too have sentience though if that is their own or the product of lots of human interaction I don't yet know.
The Gods. I am sure that many are merely 'popular' spirits of place, beings that have become strong and powerful after a lot of human interaction – a tsunami in the stream if you like. The other gods I am sure are ancestors, humans who were very real and very alive many 1000's of year ago. Roll back to the neolithic when ancestor worship was the norm (see the many current traditions in various parts of the world which have retained this element to their religion), somehow and by a mechanism I wont even begin to fathom, the ripples and patterns caused by those individuals are perpetuated and continue beyond their death until they become like wight or god in the sense described above – they exist independent of the physical aspect.
The gods I think exist regardless of humans and their activities. However, they become – more – with our interaction, they are shaped by us and evolve as we do and our needs change, indeed, their influence in the stream is also shaped and fed by our own.
|
|
|
|
Post by potia on Feb 17, 2009 9:48:55 GMT -1
I can see similarlities to my own beliefs in what you write Lee. I find it very difficult to explain in writing what I do believe but I am going to give it a go.
Some years ago now I had what would best be called a vision I guess while meditating to some music. In that vision I felt myself to be at the centre of all things with threads of golden light reaching out from me and flowing to me. Some of these threads moved in a straight line and others spiraled forming a web with me at the centre. At each point that the threads crossed each other was something like a flame and the more threads crossed at any point, the brighter the flame. This vision then changed in perspective and instead of being at the centre I was suddenly containing this web within me. I was both at it's centre and holding it within me.
To me each of these threads symbolises an interaction with another life and each flame an individual being. The more I interact with a particular being the stronger that thread becomes and the more powerful an individual the stronger the light of the flame to my senses.
At a later date I had a follow on vision from this where I could for want of a better term zoom in and out with my perceptions of this web. As I normally see it you and I would be flames, more powerful spirits larger flames and gods would seem like a bonfire but a blade of grass or an insect would not really be visible excepts as a general background glow. When I altered my perception and zoomed in each blade of grass became a flame and you and I like bonfires with gods being like suns. Zooming out past my usual vision saw the gods as flames and us as the background glow.
These vision experiences were both brief moments but for me incredibly profound. What has become more important to me are my interactions with that web, the threads of light connecting all things and yet allowing individuality and uniqueness within that web.
Lee, you see all existence as a stream from what you have written, I see it as a web. You see individual beings as a feature within that stream if I have understood you correctly, I see them as a point where threads meet and cross. Again if I have understood you correctly you see interactions as ripples in the stream I see them as the individual threads of the web.
Are our beliefs different? I'm not sure but I don't think they are much different but we do seem to have very different ways of veiwing them.
I hope this makes some sort of sense to those reading this - as I say it's hard to put into written words. I've spoken about it with a few people before but this is the first time I have tried to write it down.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Feb 17, 2009 10:36:10 GMT -1
What I really love about these latest posts is that history is forced to stand down before personal experience and personal belief structures. Then research is used to flesh out these personal experiences as a way of attempting to get back to the ancestors in a way that feels credible. The web, the stream, the world tree of knowledge can all be used to navigate and pull together all the various threads.
What I have noticed during the many public rites I have witnessed is the tendency to go round about the houses and not get to the real core of the intent that I feel our ancestors might have had.
I have not attended any rites that focus specifically on a certain god and unite with it by ritualism of all its various associations. This I feel would be a very exciting and also ground breaking thing to do. The closest that comes to mind are perhaps festivals like Imbolc, were some people might have a strong focus on Brigit for example.
But I think it might also be very inspiring to explore other gods in such a format, Epona for example. I personally would love to dedicate a ritual to Belenus, but I think my understanding of him might be too far removed from others here to share a united experience. Nodens would also be another good example of a specific focus for ritual. Focusing on a specific god for a rite would be fantastic for clarity of what and why we are doing something and a great way to learn more about a god and strengthen personal relationship/bonds with it. Such rites would also contain a strong sense of religiousness and not be ambigious or just banging on about the seasons in some vague animist way.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Feb 17, 2009 10:46:30 GMT -1
Why I also find this approach very exciting is because the people here are so very knowledgeable and so well researched that we could all bring something to the table that really allows us to go very deep into the gods symbolism and flesh it out in a way that will be far from fluffy bunny or hippy dippy. The deication and comittment we have could really create something awesom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 17, 2009 11:09:31 GMT -1
Potia, think they are very similar  it is just that we 'visualise' in different ways to convey a similar meaning. i dont know if you have menioned your view of deity, but how do you think they fit into the web? |
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Feb 17, 2009 11:11:51 GMT -1
Oh yes, and also working with the gods themselves would also allow us to throw the established Neo Druidic ritual formula out the window. No chanting the Awen etc. A chance for a fresh start and a completely different approach, thus helping to create our identity totally removed from that which we find we have out grown.
Surely it makes sense that it is the gods themselves who open the oaken door for us to broader and more meaningful horizons.
|
|
|
|
Post by potia on Feb 17, 2009 11:52:59 GMT -1
Potia, think they are very similar it is just that we 'visualise' in different ways to convey a similar meaning. i dont know if you have menioned your view of deity, but how do you think they fit into the web? In my normal vision of the web (for want of a better term) then the gods are bonfires or even brighter, like stars. Just like people they can vary in strength of presence, just like us and every other species in this world, they are unique yet interconnected. How they come to be as bright as they are I'm not sure but part of it I think is the sheer number of threads flowing through that nexus point. I've come to see gods as a form of being that have evolved into something that has no need for a physical body, exactly what they have evolved from and how I've no idea but that's my current take on them. Again I don't think that's too different to some of the other ideas expressed here |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Feb 17, 2009 17:21:00 GMT -1
At the risk of slightly diverting this thread, though if read properly I don't think it will, I offer the following as my own "take" on things at this present minute in time. I am happy to be questioned about this and to accept any constructive criticism as to any failings I may have made about my interpretation of the theories behind my reasoning.
I believe that the animating force in the universe responsible for the term “animism” is what is being called by science the “Zero Point Field”. The zero point field is the point at absolute zero, approximately 273 C below freezing, where traditional physics thought all atomic activity ceased. Tom Rosenbaum managed to achieve, to within a few thousandths of a degree, this temperature, and no matter how disorganised the atoms were previously, they all started to act in concert, in other words, they all began to act in uniformity. Thus, they formed or were assimilated into a fundamental energy field thought to be responsible for the animating force, at it's most basic level, in our universe.
The zero point field is the subject of many scientific endeavours at this time in all parts of the world, (In the US, they have been researching this in secret for over 30 years before going public with it in 2006.) it is seen as a potential source of energy for use in space travel and domestic power production.
So, the basic component needed for existence, the animating force, is present in an area that was previously thought of as the limiting boundary of existence. Minus 273 degrees below freezing is colder than any part of the known or observed universe at this time. If the animating force is present there, it would seem to me to be reasonable to assume that this force is what the ancients referred to as the great web of life, the interconnecting web of energy that permeates every living and non-animated particle of existence known to us at this time.
Because this field is the basic component for physical activity, I would contend that it is also responsible for the primary source of interaction within the body, by means of electromagnetic activity as opposed to chemical activity.
To qualify this statement, we look to the work of German Physicist Fritz-Albert Popp. For more than 30 years, he has been building up information about the fact that all living things, from single celled plants to humans emit constant currents of photons – particles of light. He labelled them biophoton emmisions and believed them to be the primary communication channel of living organisms – light was a means of signalling to itself and the outside world.
He theorized that this radiation was the driving force in orchestrating and co-ordinating all cellular processes in the body. The information passing this way through the body explained why multiple processes are carried out simultaneously in different body parts.
He built the first photomultiplier – a machine capable of counting individual photons – and years of experiments demonstrated that the tiny frequencies used to emit photons were stored and emitted from the DNA of cells. Research has shown that healthy people emit more photons than, for example, cancer patients who emit significantly less.
Further, more electromagnetic actions have been observed in what is known as “Quantum Entanglement”. When subatomic particles such as electrons or photons have been in contact, they remain cognizant of and influenced by each other instantaneously over ANY distance forever. When entangled, the actions – for example, the magnetic orientation – of one will always influence the other, no matter the distance by which they are separated. This type of instantaneous connection requires information travelling faster than the speed of light, thus breaking Einstein's relativity theory which stipulates that nothing can travel faster than light.
The French physicist Alain Aspect and his team in Paris have demonstrated that the speed of light is not an absolute outer boundary in the sub atomic world, thus another limiting factor upon energetic interaction is removed.
If we accept quantum entanglement, or non-locality, as it is also known, as a natural facet of nature, we are accepting that two bedrocks of our worldview are wrong.....
1: That influence only happens over time and distance.
2: That things made up of particles only ever exist independently of each other.
It was originally thought that quantum entanglement only happened at subatomic level, however recent work by the likes of Tom Rosenbaum, Vlatko Vedral, Benni Reznik, Anton Zeilinger & Wolfgang Ketterle and his associates have shown it to occur at molecular level too. This means that matter itself, the stuff you and me are made from, exists in a state of pure potential, not a final actuality, and under certain circumstances, appears to be malleable, susceptible to influence from the outside.
Quantifiable experiments created throughout the world in different labs have shown that the act of observance effects the final outcome of a given set of outcomes. The premise that the act of observing something effects the final state of matter we observe around us, is a provable fact and by the very action of that observation made by us, may suggest that we, ourselves, maybe an active part in creation itself.
It has often been written that we are beings of light, this would now appear to be in the process of being qualified. If we do indeed, emit particles of light throughout our lifetime, then part of us is forever present in the environment. This can be qualified by the observation of light eminating from distant stars. That light may have it's origins millions of years ago and it is speculated that the very star from which that light eminated from originally, may now not even be in existence. Yet, it's energy continues to have an influence upon us. We can see the light from it as we look into the night sky each evening. So, the very act of existence creates a process that continues to interact with everything it comes into contact with. The fact that the source of that light may not exist anymore proves that energy retains the “signature” of the entity it originated from. The original entity, to all intents and purposes, continues to live through it's original actions which continue to interact with the presently animated.
So, do the photons originating within our own biological bodies, retain our signature into the environment? If it does, as in the case of stellar light, then the environment must posses the signatures of everything that ever has, and possibly ever will, exist.
The first law of thermodynamics states “ Energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but it can neither be created or destroyed.”. This would suggest to me that any actions originating from us, remain in the environment, in varying degrees, for ever.
The actions of entanglement suggests that our actions may continue to influence that very environment, and the consequences of that interaction continue long after our physical form is gone.
As a person who considers himself to be polytheistic in their spiritual belief's, the consequences of of the realization of the mechanisms just described should be fairly self evident.
RR
|
|
|
|
Post by potia on Feb 18, 2009 8:56:22 GMT -1
If I've read this correctly what you are saying is we are potentially connected at a quantum level to anything we interact with and thus for every action we take there will be a reaction in that field of connections that is not limited to the current time and place. Have I understood you correctly?
If I have then I think you are simply using the language and patterns of physics to explain what Lee sees as a stream and I see as a web. Am I correct there?
Sadly my physics is too rusty to be able to properly appreciate your points although they do seem to make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Feb 18, 2009 19:55:31 GMT -1
Hello Potia,
I'll try to expand with more explanations, hopefully with more clearer language.
First, the "web". Science has maintained using traditional physics, that there is a point where all energetic activity ceases, that point is absolute zero, minus 273 degrees, approx, and therefore the idea of an all pervading web of energy could not exist because when it met this point, it's activity would also cease. So, the discovery that atoms, however disorganized before, (disorganized in the sense that they appear to be random and not organized into any physical form) not only continue to display energetic interactions, but also all start to organize themselves into a common field, means that there is, indeed, a web of energy present around us in every place in the universe. UPG becomes science fact.
So, we know this web exists and what it is made from and that it is electromagnetic in nature. How can this electromagnetic force inpact upon us? In my previous threads exploring the idea about the input from the environment affecting us through biology, you may remember that Lee pointed out the flaws in that particular idea. Basically, it was chemical processes that were responsible for genetic expression and not electromagnetic waves. So, I decided to study the concepts for quantum mechanics which offer the best route, at this time, for an explanation which may qualify our UPG and place some of it into the realms of science fact.
Fritz - Albert Popp's work is very important to us for many reasons. Firstly, he was the first person to prove the existence of light particles, photons, eminating from all living entites. As I tried to explain in my post, this light may contain the signature of our existence. The best analogy I can think of at this time is cable broadband. All the information your computer collects for displaying onto your screen is sent in packages of light, and provided the conditions are met, it can do this from anywhere in the world by decoding that light. So, if your computer can decode light and you are eminating light into the environment, is it possible that your light may also be decoded by who or whatever? And how long is your light in that environment?
For me, the really interesting part was that these photons seemed to be originating and being controlled by, the DNA in our cells, which for me, was a neat twist.
So, we have an energy web, we have ourselves creating energy through light particles and waves, do we have a process whereas we can see an interaction between the two?
Quantum entanglement offers a potential example with unexpected consequences. One of science's primary laws was that all things live in independent existence from each other. What influences one does not influence the other because of space and time. Experiments recreated throughout the world have shown that two particles, once they have been in contact with each other, ALWAYS influence each other. For example, scientists entangled two particles and then shot them down two tubes away from each other. At the end of the tubes, there were two possible exits. The previous law would mean that the particles would enter either of the two exits in a completely random fashion, with no statistical significance in the results. However, when they analyized the results, they found that the actions of the first particle always influenced the second particles choice of exit and that distance between the two made no difference, the communication was instantaneous over what ever the distance.
This concept is known in scientific circles as non-locality and basically infers that intelligent interaction is not just a result of internal intelligence but is subject to outside influence. Can you see why this would be important to us?
I'll clarify the rest of my post later to give people the chance to understand the concepts I am proposing here.
RR
|
|
|
|
Post by potia on Feb 19, 2009 9:02:25 GMT -1
Hi RR,
I can follow the arguments and as I say you seem to be using the language of physics to explain what Lee and I have separately described as a web or a stream. And yes I like the fact that physics seems to be giving us a scientific explanation for some of the things we experience as spiritual occurences.
Where my rusty physics come in is that I am not sure how mainstream the ideas you list are or if they are in effect fringe theories. While I did study physics at Uni that was a while ago now and I would in no way describe myself as a physicist. So while I think you may be onto something here I simply don't have the right up to date knowledge to debate any of the points of the argument with you but I will try and read up on Fritz - Albert Popp to get a better feel for things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 19, 2009 10:26:20 GMT -1
Hi RR, I can follow the arguments and as I say you seem to be using the language of physics to explain what Lee and I have separately described as a web or a stream. And yes I like the fact that physics seems to be giving us a scientific explanation for some of the things we experience as spiritual occurences. Where my rusty physics come in is that I am not sure how mainstream the ideas you list are or if they are in effect fringe theories. While I did study physics at Uni that was a while ago now and I would in no way describe myself as a physicist. So while I think you may be onto something here I simply don't have the right up to date knowledge to debate any of the points of the argument with you but I will try and read up on Fritz - Albert Popp to get a better feel for things. they look to be fringe theories. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 19, 2009 10:36:49 GMT -1
Hello Potia, So, the discovery that atoms, however disorganized before, (disorganized in the sense that they appear to be random and not organized into any physical form) not only continue to display energetic interactions, but also all start to organize themselves into a common field, means that there is, indeed, a web of energy present around us in every place in the universe. UPG becomes science fact. could you point to the science sources for this please? biophotons it seems are generally accepted. beyond that it all gets very pseudoscience. these photons are described as ultraweak. worth bearing in mind then that they would be swamped by normal photons is daylight or even starlight. thier use as a signalling method would therefore be useless to a large extent - like using a CB radio in the middle of a nuclear bombs detonation. similarly the light we emit inot the environment - it is like a mote of dust in a hurricane. negligible. Popp suggested DNA MIGHT have an involvement, it is just as likely or in fact more than likely that the photons arise from oxidative processes, normal cellular metabolism or simple chemical processes within the cell - no involvement of DNA at all. i think that once you start using terms like 'intelligent interaction' and 'outiside influence' when talking about 2 atoms, you are starting to tread of shaky ground. if you were to put something like this on a physics forum you would probably get one hell of a slating. lee |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Feb 19, 2009 16:36:48 GMT -1
could you point to the science sources for this please? John D Barrow, The Book of Nothing, London, Johnathan Cape, 2000 Erwin Lazlo, The interconnected Universe, Conceptual Foundations of Transdisciplinary Unified theory, Singapore, World Scientific Publishing, 1995 Harold Puthoff, Ground state of hydrogen as a zero point fluctuation determined state, Physical review D, 1987 A lot of this uses the Bose-Einstein condensate model and the results from this... C E Wieman & E A Cornell, "Seventy years later: the creation of a Bose-Einstein condensate in an ultra cold gas" Lorentz Proceedings, 1999, 52 biophotons it seems are generally accepted. beyond that it all gets very pseudoscience. these photons are described as ultraweak. worth bearing in mind then that they would be swamped by normal photons is daylight or even starlight. thier use as a signalling method would therefore be useless to a large extent - like using a CB radio in the middle of a nuclear bombs detonation. similarly the light we emit inot the environment - it is like a mote of dust in a hurricane. negligible. I don't disagree, but I am more interested in the principle being established. One line of command inserted on a computer can screw up your entire system, statistically insignificant, but effective never the less, so who knows what these minute photons may represent in the future. i think that once you start using terms like 'intelligent interaction' and 'outiside influence' when talking about 2 atoms, you are starting to tread of shaky ground. if you were to put something like this on a physics forum you would probably get one hell of a slating. Except, of course, it has moved on from single atoms, as Wolfgang Ketterle and his associates reproduced the experiments using a form of sodium, for which they received the Nobel prize in 2001. I think that a lot of this would be viewed as fringe thinking, however, I find it an interesting place to study. I am not saying that these ideas are complete or even correct, but I do find them interesting and to be of relevence and think they should be considered through this type of medium. However, if people think they are not relevent, please indicate as such and I will refrain from posting such things in the future. (No, it's not a strop here, just that I think this area needs clarifying for future discussions, are people open to these ideas or am I just being a pain in the arse?) RR |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 19, 2009 16:49:12 GMT -1
i dont think you are being a pain in the arse.
the thing is, most of the stuff you post on here is fringe science, pseudo-science or indeed total nonsense (e.g morphogenic fields)
the problem is that such things are built on shaky foundations and can come crashing down with further research, this starts to be a problem when you use such ideas to base your religous paradigm on. what happens to it when the 'scientific foundations' of it are shown to be shit?
if you want to look to science, look for the solid, tried and tested theories. those are the ones we can call "facts" and "truth" if ever there was a time to do so in science.
|
|
it is just that we 'visualise' in different ways to convey a similar meaning.