"Talking with trees" in July's Touchstone

[Explorer]

Sun is indeed getting active with dangerous discharges to satellites and senstive technology, but this also taken out of context. This is the well known 11-year solar cycle (in fact, we've been working our butts off to get our new radio telescope ready before the maximum hits, next year or so, because our telescope goes blind for a few years then). After that maximum it will subside again until 11 years later.

Really? That's fascinating Nic. What do you do in the years between, just not watch or use another method??
Probably off topic by the way, so feel free to just mail me xxx

Fixing the holes in the too hastily build software, and designing/building other telecopes. This one is just the precursor to a much larger one that we are co-creating.
And we still have the old one, you know, the one where you pushed those buttons in the control room once.

[Explorer]

Where can I find the article, you have me intriguided now

I attached it. I'm not sure if this breaks some copyright, I don't think so, but if it is a problem then I can delete it again.

[Explorer]

I think you're absolutely right here. The way in which every article writer seems compelled to use the magical formula "scientific studies have shown..." to support any and every claim is absolutely ridiculous and quite unnerving. Can't we speak for ourselves, or to support the insights coming from our communities for what they are?

I agree with this.

[Bart]

Evolutionary science for instance has changed a lot in recent decades and "survival of the fittest" is no longer validated by all.

Could you direct me to the scientist who do not believe in evolution?
So far I found that either they do not understand "fittest" or they believe in morpho genetic fields, to name a pseudo scientific crappy theory.

[Lily]

If the copyright was breached, I am the one to be tarred and feathered. But I claim "fair use" - for educational purposes...

Scientific concepts are not rigid ....

I'm not sure this is entirely true.
On the one hand religious beliefs seem to be rigid (and are to certain communities at a certain time) but not only do people evolve new beliefs while abandoning old ones, religious communities too will progressively develop new beliefs and adapt to their environment. The church I used to go to, for instance, accepts divorce which would have been unthinkable only a few decades ago.

I'm not saying they can't be abandoned (Karen Armstrong in "A history of God" writes that religious tenets were always those that "worked) - but while they are "law", they are rigid.

On the other hand while the scientific method can and often does produce new concepts and theories, the scientific community has often been resistant to change. It can take time for mainstream scientists to acknowledge a major change in conceptualizing the world.

Yes - true, the bigger the dogma you want to overthrow, the harder you have to argue. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But once it is there - the community accepts it.

Why can’t we have two mindframes, methods of thinking – one for the profane, based on science.

Can't we speak for ourselves, or to support the insights coming from our communities for what they are?

Can I just add that in this two-mindframe model we should not be allowed to push our sacred minset on others?

[skh]

(I felt compelled to compose a fresh little "skeptopagan manifesto"...)

Lily (or any other participant in this discussion),

have you considered sending in an article as reaction to this one to Touchstone? I could imagine more people are interested.

peace /|\
Sonja

[Lily]

I actually have!
I won't trash the article that triggered it, promised.

But I have to flesh it out a bit

[Muddy Fox]

I like the article, thanks for the link Nico, I tend to agree with most of the contents, from a personal unscientific view which I am not forcing onto anybody at all.
I've worked with the meridans in reflexology for a number of years, and got some good results. My dog knows when I am coming home, becuase he sits on the windowledge ten minutes before I pull up waiting for me and he just adores me. He follows me everywhere, so we have that heart connection going on.
I have recently connected to a tree, which was surprising, because I didn't go with the intention of connecting to the tree, we just clicked.
And most surprisingly of all I was electrocuted when I was four years old by touching a bare wire and putting that and my finger into the socket on the wall. The force of the shock threw me across to the opposite side of the room, so my mother tells me, I can hardly remember it. So that may explain everything including my irregular heartbeat and ability to sense energy. I'm not going into any debate on any of this though, I'm too tired!

[Bart]

Myself I have a food/drink cookie relationship with my dog and I cant get rid of him either. And he waits for me at the door, mainly because my schedule has become predictable.
Personally I only connected to a tree trough the bumper of my car, despite the fact I used to have a passion for electricity. And actually been buzzed a number of times. I do talk to trees, but I register no response.
I do reiki and massage and it helps if the "patient" expects it to help. For other people I just have very strong warm hands.I think placebo effect is discussed elswhere.

[Lizzy]

And we still have the old one, you know, the one where you pushed those buttons in the control room once.

Ah yes, good memories, I felt like Jodie Foster !

[skh]

I actually have!

Cool, looking forward to reading it

peace /|\
Sonja

[Bart]

Nico, thanks for the article. I just read it.

I do understand the human physiology and the number of assumptions and half truths were overwhelming. It will take too much effort to dispose of these fluffy nonsense, which I do want to spend on it.

The best thing out of the article is the 0Hz bit. Beside the obvious of 0Hz is no resonance. Even the observer effect groupies know that absolute 0Hz does not exist.

I do like a good conspiracy theory and I think this auther could write some.

[Heddwen]

I actually have!

Cool, looking forward to reading it

peace /|\
Sonja

Here here

....there is a part two though

[Lily]

I know - I was going to wait for part II to refine my argument; although my aim is not to bash the article.
It would be to really present to the touchstone readers that there is another segment to the community...

[Bart]

If you like/need/require input, let us know.

[Explorer]

I know - I was going to wait for part II to refine my argument; although my aim is not to bash the article.
It would be to really present to the touchstone readers that there is another segment to the community...

Very good!

[Lily]

If you like/need/require input, let us know.

I'm going to base it on my "manifesto" above.
If you have any input beforehand, please pm me. If you want to review the final, let me know.

[Explorer]

If you like/need/require input, let us know.

I'm going to base it on my "manifesto" above.
If you have any input beforehand, please pm me. If you want to review the final, let me know.

I applaud what you are trying to do.
Personally, I gave up on Touchstone and canceled my subsrcription because there is too much B.S. I don't think you will get through to people who can not make the distinction between objective facts and subjective personal opinions. But perhaps you can get the attention of people who can. It would be a welcome breeze of fresh air to read such an article.

I am planning to something similar, but more hands on. I want to create a workshop about prehistoric astronomy, alignments and how it (doesn't) relate to astrology.
But I want to do it really really hands on, showing people who they can simply do these calculations and alignments and then do a ritual in which you can actually see the full moon (or whatever) rise above the altar during the height of the ritual. (and also what happens if you base those calculations on astrology).

BTW, the may queen asks where she can sign your manifesto and says it is about time that somebody makes a stand against the 'galactic charlatans'. So YES, there certainly are 'other segments' in our community.

[Explorer]

A tip could be to include the (old course) ovate 'mission statement' in it. Which is to reconcile the two apparent opposities of dualism.

There are rational extremists, who strip everything of meaning and only accept scientific fact, rational thought and objective knowledge to describe the world.
There are spiritual extremists, who strip everything of fact and truth, and only accept the will of gods, personal spiritual experiences and Holy Truths to describe the world.

Both ways of thinking lead to a one sided incomplete and false image of our place in this world as humans.
One of our tasks, as druids, is to reconcile these two apparent opposites. Not to mix them up, but to see them both for what they are, their strengths and weaknesses, and in some way combine them. And then we will discover that despite some paradoxes, they are not opposites, and that the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

For instance, I can accurately calculate the moonrise using scientific knowledge, in such a way that it rises above the altar as seen from a specific predetermined place in the circle. This experience can instill a sense of awe, magic and connection to the participants. Rationality and spirituality combined.

Would I only use spiritual means, and do my calculations using astrology, the moon wouldn't appear (because astrology doesn't reflect the real sky very well). Leading to a feeling of fakery and disappointment.
Would I only use a rational mindset, then there wouldn't be a ritual at all, it would simply be a moonrise according to the calculations, without the sense of awe and connection.

Reconcilation. That is what we should strive for. But that also requires the ability to make that distinction, some education, and the will to honour truth instead of falsehood. (and perhaps that is where we druids come in).

[Hennie]

You all seem very convinced that the author of the piece isn't a man of science, an stronomer for instance; how come?

And Mr Ian Beattie, if you are reading these lines, can you please enlighten me on this question?