September 29, 2012

Rough Edges

   I have been reading The Bond by Lynn McTaggert - a book that came highly recommended from a number of sources.  The Bond deals with a different means of looking at the connections between people.  I was looking at the book from the Linus Pauling - Nature of the Chemical Bond - point of view, because as a molecular chemist, the bonds between atoms that make the molecules provide storage of the energy of life.
   McTaggert is a social scientist, and i had thought that her idea was to apply chemical principles to aspects of sociology.  This makes sense to me, in that chemistry has to do with the relationships of small numbers of atoms. We call the area group theory and it has its basis in mathematical symmetry.  It seems that societal groups would conform to group theory, especially when an overlay of games theory is added - people like playing games.
   Now that i am ten chapters deep, i notice i was incorrect in my assumption.   She has a different idea in mind.  There are some places i agree heartily and some places where, when the symmetry is violated, her premises don't quite have substance.  I also have a different knowledge background, and learned the effects of epigenetics from a scientific point of view - so i needed to translate the language a bit to get her point.  The book is well written and i'd say we overlap in theory about 80%.
   When i mentioned to a friend that i had some disagreement with part of the premise, i got jumped on big time for not buying in hook, line and sinker?  I was told that her experiments are 90% verified and i had to be wrong - without even getting to the part where the person could discuss any experimental data.  I am well aware of intention experiments and i believe that there is something structurally unsound about our current image of how the universe unfolds.  
    There is a need to chill out, people.  Right and wrong is clear as mud.  Facts, as presented, can be built up to make any case.  This comes by selectively choosing only those facts that agree with our premise and leaving behind all the knowledge that we did not care to look up at the time of our opinion.  Life is dynamic, not static and consistency is enhance by changing your point of view based on new facts, not sweeping them under the rug, so that you can say the same thing.
   I am also having a problem with the selective application of rules and norms.  Why is it is okay for people in certain power positions within a group to take actions, that are not okay for the general members of the same group?  I am specifically asking why, the shift network formally backs people to sell goods and services to the members of the network, but does not allow the exchange of commercial opportunity between the members of the network.  I call the approach captive marketing and i do not wish to be captive any longer.  So if you are a shift-based friend and you miss me, please keep in touch by other means.
   So once again, what i see as positive is taken as negative by people with the opposite polarity.  This should not be a surprising result - like attracts like in chemistry and opposites polarize.  There is a distinct difference between polarity and duality - polarity involves dual components of one thing (two sides of a coin), while duality is opposite - like right and wrong.  The yin/yang relationship of the latter is used as a means of discarding everything that does not fit the 'either/or' model - perhaps the time has come to discard this current broken duality assumption.
   Namaste'   doc

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hey Lenny - Joseph.

Check this out

This is a good place to start in terms of creating coherent group unity - the quantum Community.

I would love to hear your evaluation of this. do you still have my email address? got more links and ideas on the subject