Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Toward a Science for Deliberate Creation

  1. #11
    I love this topic. What I want to contribute is some thoughts about the distinction I make between science, on the one hand, and art, craft, or skill, on the other. The skill pf skiing is the practical knowledge that I can only learn through practice. I know how it feels and what muscles I should contract, in what order, and how. The science of skiing is about the laws of dynamics, angles, forces, momentum, and the theoretical knowledge about the types of muscles that exist, body types, etc...

    The science of deliberate creation is something I understand conceptually (not to the detailed levels of formulas, but in general, in terms of why it works, what is the nature of reality, how vibration becomes energy, and energy matter). But how one can use this knowledge practically is a different thing. I would call it the art or skill of deliberate creation. The question is how do I recreate the feeling (range of feelings) that would allow me to manifest material reality every single time? I think it's absolutely possible like it's possible to learn how to ski or swim. But each person can only discover it for himself.

  2. #12
    Super Moderator WellBeing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14,459
    I really like this distinction between "science" and "art." I think it's an important consideration here, especially given this material's reliance on our emotional guidance system. According to Abraham, that was one of the reasons why they moved away from the term "science" towards "art" in the first place.

  3. #13
    Beloved Woman paradise-on-earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Elfengarten, Germany
    Posts
    65,816
    I have no direct quote, but want to add that Abe recently gave a love-speech for the term "science of deliberate creation". They thought it would be the best and most perfect description for what they attempt to teach, because "science" is something that has to do with deliberate exploration, and with total reliability and newness- leading-edgeness- as well (I wish I would have transcribed the piece).

    The problem with the term was that we humans took it to seriously. We applied effort and non-playfulness, and so it derailed from what Abe were attempting, and so they looked for a more soft term.

  4. #14
    Beloved Woman paradise-on-earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Elfengarten, Germany
    Posts
    65,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Hands in the Clay View Post
    I think you will find some satisfaction in exploring several other branches of metaphysical/physical thought that clearly support/dovetail the Abraham Teachings, but use different languages and thought structures to express the concepts.
    Abe have stated that Bashar is the same energy-stream than Abe, coming through a different outlet.
    Thatīs why Bashar is more scientifically oriented.

  5. #15
    Super Moderator Hands in the Clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Perfume Vortex of the World, France
    Posts
    5,837
    Bashar wasn't even on my mental list when I posted that, as there are so many advanced teachings out there in the world, channeled via varying degrees of consciousness, but thanks for the input.

  6. #16
    thwinters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Arkansas, USA
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Felicie View Post
    I love this topic. What I want to contribute is some thoughts about the distinction I make between science, on the one hand, and art, craft, or skill, on the other. The skill pf skiing is the practical knowledge that I can only learn through practice. I know how it feels and what muscles I should contract, in what order, and how. The science of skiing is about the laws of dynamics, angles, forces, momentum, and the theoretical knowledge about the types of muscles that exist, body types, etc...

    The science of deliberate creation is something I understand conceptually (not to the detailed levels of formulas, but in general, in terms of why it works, what is the nature of reality, how vibration becomes energy, and energy matter). But how one can use this knowledge practically is a different thing. I would call it the art or skill of deliberate creation. The question is how do I recreate the feeling (range of feelings) that would allow me to manifest material reality every single time? I think it's absolutely possible like it's possible to learn how to ski or swim. But each person can only discover it for himself.
    This is a very good point. While I find it easy to understand the idea of getting into alignment (Think better feeling thoughts) it takes PRACTICE to get into the art of it. The science of that is something called cognitive therapy (the psychology version of this, but it focuses on NOT thinking NEGATIVE thoughts.)

    So the science is 'think happier thoughts' the 'art' is getting good at it. And that does take practice.

  7. #17
    thwinters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Arkansas, USA
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by paradise-on-earth View Post
    I have no direct quote, but want to add that Abe recently gave a love-speech for the term "science of deliberate creation". They thought it would be the best and most perfect description for what they attempt to teach, because "science" is something that has to do with deliberate exploration, and with total reliability and newness- leading-edgeness- as well (I wish I would have transcribed the piece).

    The problem with the term was that we humans took it to seriously. We applied effort and non-playfulness, and so it derailed from what Abe were attempting, and so they looked for a more soft term.
    The science here is 'Ask, get into alignment, and it is given.' But that is the science from our perspective, source takes care of everything else. What I really want to know is the science from their perspective, the math.

    And yes, I am practicing the science of deliberate creation right now. Notice how I keep asking questions, which pulls forth answers. And not just on this board! And it is working. I think we just get too caught up on making it happen ourselves (that's where I've been stuck for years. After all, I'm smart, I should be able to figure this out right?)

  8. #18
    Beloved Woman paradise-on-earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Elfengarten, Germany
    Posts
    65,816
    @HitC, thank YOU for the perfect inspiration!

    Quote Originally Posted by thwinters View Post
    The science here is 'Ask, get into alignment, and it is given.' But that is the science from our perspective, source takes care of everything else. What I really want to know is the science from their perspective, the math.
    Thatīs a fascinating and challenging thought!
    As we discussed on the other thread, we ARE source- + a very high physical focus. So, what is the difference between the two? -Resistance?

    I donīt think there is SO much difference in the "math", because the math must always be perfect, with resistance or without... LoA (-is that the math you are talking about?) is ALWAYS totally consistent. We are just from our physical stance not fully able to get all parts of it.

    And yes, I am practicing the science of deliberate creation right now. Notice how I keep asking questions, which pulls forth answers. And not just on this board! And it is working. I think we just get too caught up on making it happen ourselves (that's where I've been stuck for years. After all, I'm smart, I should be able to figure this out right?)
    Does that have to do with being smart?

    I think it has to do with being fully resistance-free, so that you could "give your undevided attention to what is wanted". But that simply is NOT the job of the physically-focused part of the whole.

    Our human part is the part of the pioneer, as Abe phrased it. We gave up our "pureness" to sift through the contrast and FEEL out the new conclusions, that put "eternity into eternalness"- because without new preferences there wouldnīt be new journeys- and so, endedness, and no fun of closing the gaps.

    I guess I donīt really understand what you are asking, but Iīd love to understand. Could you describe the question again?

  9. #19
    Super Moderator Hands in the Clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Perfume Vortex of the World, France
    Posts
    5,837
    thwinters, just for clarification, when I talk about scientific writings, I'm not talking about channeled spiritual writings with a scientific bent, but actual non-metaphysical books on science - the study of consciousness and its existence, activities, and effects outside of the body; the behavior and coalescence of energy and matter; the vibrational differences between realms of consciousness, etc. - it's not always in layman's terms, and it's coming through a human filter, so it's prone to being a bit bent out of shape (but that goes for channeled material, too, even Abe - once a human brain is involved, the notion of purity goes out the window) - it's all fun to read when it confirms what you've already learned from Abraham.

    From the spiritual dimension, the Seth books present notions like "this time-space reality is a growth medium that responds more rapidly to positive thought than negative thought" and the momentum of energy and intentions that leads to mass events. All of these things are covered by Abraham many times, but generally in hotseat sessions responding to specific questions, rather than in the books (so that involves poking and prodding to find segments and sometimes taking things out of context), and in somewhat lesser depth, simply due to the constraints of their market/audience and teaching format.

    If you ask, it is given, so ask for the higher scientific and/or mathematical resources that will guide you in your formulations and trust you will encounter them (or just meditate and let it come to you purely, of course, but you might not "trust yourself" in the beginning, so there's no harm in leafing through leading-edge human-form materials for some general ideas and lingo).

    But my strongest recommendation would be this: CONTEMPLATION. Go on long walks and let your mind gently chew on notions, and then feel the jolt of inspiration when it hits, and write down what comes (bring pen and notepad on your walks, or a device that lets you dictate spontaneously for minutes at a time). Go to a quiet field, a port, a forest, an unbusy park, and just sit and wonder and watch. I've gotten fascinating glimmers of the relationship between wind and electrical transfers in nature, the "purpose" of religion and language, and untold pages of teachings notions for threads here that I've never posted. Don't push it or force it - just let your mind wonder and wander like a child's, and then see what comes.

  10. #20
    thwinters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Arkansas, USA
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by paradise-on-earth View Post
    Could you describe the question again?
    I will try. Getting the question right is vital. I am a computer scientist (and a software engineer), and I can describe the entire tcp/ip (transport control protocol/internet protocol) in all it's glorious complexity. (Though once I understood it, and saw it as a whole, there is an elegant simplicity to it I can not describe.) The LOA works something like a search engine: You go to the site, ask (put in your search terms) and are given an answer (the search results) that hopefully are related to your search terms. But tcp/ip is a communications protocol, and search engines are very complex.

    When I first read Ask and it is Given, I thought it was silly. 'Oh here is this sweet old woman, who probably doesn't even know algebra, thinking she is speaking for God.' But ever time I tried to read it, I sensed there was some deeper meaning. Especially the part where they talk about re-defining words to represent non-physical concepts.

    Computer Science is essentially two subjects: The mathematical proof of the performance of algorithms (SOOOO BORING), and, the formal, mathematical study of context free non-ambiguous languages. This is so, because computers are literally as smart as rocks, and can not discern context dependent language, and will crash if they have to deal with ambiguity. We (computer scientists) have to carefully craft the programming languages that software engineers use to write computer code. And we have a great many tools available for these kinds of analyses.

    Back in 2004 when I first read Ask, and it is Given, I thought it was silly. 'Oh, here is a sweet old grandmother who thinks she is speaking for God.' I wanted to dismiss it, as I had most all other material I had found on the LOA. And yet, I sensed some deeper meaning in the text. I was especially intrigued by the bit about how Abraham had to redefine certain English words in order to describe certain non-physical concepts. And it dawned on me: That is not something a silly old grandmother would know to do. And that really caught my attention. It's something a scientist would do at the start of a technical paper.

    So I applied those computer sciency language tools (BNF Syntax trees, semantic analysis, etc. if you want to search for them to learn more) to the text. And as I parsed those words (I'm using 'parse' in the computer science technical sense) I realized that those terms seemed to be technical terms. And it seemed to me that Ester was trying to describe a communications protocol from the system administrators of a vast computer system running this simulation that Abraham calls this physical reality. I re-wrote that first chapter using my own words, based on my analysis (this took me days and days by the way) and I had what read like a technical manual. And it made a WHOLE lot more sense.

    But then I thought... well, perhaps this is just a case of if you only have a hammer, the whole world seems like a nail. My tools were designed for work on and with computers, so naturally, I would read it that way, right? (I was in Holland when I did that, and I think I threw those papers away, wish I had kept them now.)

    Well... today, more and more physicists are becoming convinced that we are living in a computer simulation, running on a vast, cosmic quantum computer. Oh... hmm... well... Maybe I wasn't so wrong after all. I first heard about this around 2008.

    So as I thought about that, if this truly is a computer simulation, then wouldn't it make sense that God could speak to us? And I remember thinking, what would God sound like? Love love love love joy joy joy joy.... Ah yes! Abraham.

    So just as tcp/ip is a protocol, I believe the Law of Attraction is a communications protocol that exists between all non-physical entities (including us who are physically focused!) I mention this in another thread.

    But just as tcp/ip has a set of axioms, rules, and procedures for the transmission of information, so to then must the LOA. It might be something as simple as Roberts Rules of Order, but I doubt it. And that process that generates our physical reality will have procedures for taking into account all the thoughts of all physically focused beings, and weaving them into the leading edge of creation (which I interpret to mean the world as it is rendered right now.)

    So I want to know the communication protocols and the rules for calculating our reality.

    Does that make more sense?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •