I thought a musical interlude might be rather nice. Please enjoy.
1 comment:
Formerly Amhert
said...
What a tremendously wonderful symphony by Beethoven. My favorite composer is Claude Debussy, and additionally the whole complement of French impressionists -- Ravel, Satie... It is said that French impressionism was inspired by the nature kingdoms. Quite a lot has been written about this, sometimes by major composers themselves.
My point was that neither religious people nor secularists have the knowledge or insight necessary to make decisions about something as consequential as, for example, Roe v Wade. Inasmuch as we do not know the aims and purpose of human life, we frequently run up against the conundrum of parapsychology illiteracy.
Now outside of the religious structure and the secular structure, we have developed over the centuries a massive understanding of what happens when an individual is divested of the physical body. People who have not examined the literature and have not had personal experiences are really unaware of how massive the discussion and evidence are. They are unaware of the millions of people that have had personal experiences in confirmation of the literature, which is all overlapping. Most would be amazed.
The point is that Roe v Wade was constructed without any of this knowledge. Although transpersonal psychology is now a regular part of the psychological disciplines, Roe v Wade did not include it, and the argument still goes on between secularists and dogmatic religious types, none of whom have demonstrated one tenth of what psychical research has demonstrated, sometimes in triple-blind studies.
So since we know that an incarnating personality exists both prior to birth and after death, how are we to think about laws made to govern with two respective absolutist and contradictory points of view?
Also, from the same traditions I speak of, the full incarnation of a human being may not be concluded until their 20s or 30s. It's a long process.
This might argue for abolishing Roe v Wade. However, not necessarily. Suppose a person was going to give birth to a Hitler or Stalin. If one could know, wouldn't it be better if the dark forces never got the opportunity of an incarnation?
Anyway, there are people whose psychic sensitivities either through nature or development are in touch with a broad section of answers that address these dilemmas, but they will never be heard. They are far too dangerous to political parties, to religion, to government. So it's not likely these views will ever make it into decisions about policy.
1 comment:
What a tremendously wonderful symphony by Beethoven. My favorite composer is Claude Debussy, and additionally the whole complement of French impressionists -- Ravel, Satie... It is said that French impressionism was inspired by the nature kingdoms. Quite a lot has been written about this, sometimes by major composers themselves.
My point was that neither religious people nor secularists have the knowledge or insight necessary to make decisions about something as consequential as, for example, Roe v Wade. Inasmuch as we do not know the aims and purpose of human life, we frequently run up against the conundrum of parapsychology illiteracy.
Now outside of the religious structure and the secular structure, we have developed over the centuries a massive understanding of what happens when an individual is divested of the physical body. People who have not examined the literature and have not had personal experiences are really unaware of how massive the discussion and evidence are. They are unaware of the millions of people that have had personal experiences in confirmation of the literature, which is all overlapping. Most would be amazed.
The point is that Roe v Wade was constructed without any of this knowledge. Although transpersonal psychology is now a regular part of the psychological disciplines, Roe v Wade did not include it, and the argument still goes on between secularists and dogmatic religious types, none of whom have demonstrated one tenth of what psychical research has demonstrated, sometimes in triple-blind studies.
So since we know that an incarnating personality exists both prior to birth and after death, how are we to think about laws made to govern with two respective absolutist and contradictory points of view?
Also, from the same traditions I speak of, the full incarnation of a human being may not be concluded until their 20s or 30s. It's a long process.
This might argue for abolishing Roe v Wade. However, not necessarily. Suppose a person was going to give birth to a Hitler or Stalin. If one could know, wouldn't it be better if the dark forces never got the opportunity of an incarnation?
Anyway, there are people whose psychic sensitivities either through nature or development are in touch with a broad section of answers that address these dilemmas, but they will never be heard. They are far too dangerous to political parties, to religion, to government. So it's not likely these views will ever make it into decisions about policy.
Post a Comment