Quote:
Originally Posted by Malletzky
And that's the point here...IT IS a Theory. And I do not have to prove my theories, otherwise they would become facts and would be measurable.
It's just that easy, as take it or leave it. If the theory resonates with our heart and our feelings, we kind a stick to it and take it as a truth.
If we dismiss the theory, we can go futher.
In the second case, if I dismiss a theory, why even bother and consistenly ask for any proofs, knowing that there is no scientific or any other by human standard measurable proof? No logic here...
Anyone of you ever had a chance to see James from the Wingmakers live on interview? Me neither! But his theories and teachings resonates with my feelings, so I take it as it is.
The same here, with the material presented from Astralwalker.
And last, but not least, do you still remember the first words of Astralwalker in his first post in the Nexus 2001 thread? Not any more?
Quote
I would like to share few thoughts and conclusions with all of you who want to listen about my research on the 2012 scenario. They will be simplified to the point where some scholars and scientists could argue about a part of which will be presented, but the main facts are true.
------------------------------------------------------------------
...all of us who want to listen...about HIS research...
I belong to the listeners...
with 
malletzky
|
Granted we all need to take what we resonate with, but likening Astralwalker's material to the one of WingMakers is just not appropriate. James goes into lengthy explanations about many details, draws upon images or metaphors to help one reason with the material, even if it is constantly stated that reason isn't the way to access it.
This is a way of leading people intellectually through on a process to something that can't be understood intellectually, I think it's only appropriate then to explain the theories in some fashions.
These illustrations aren't given in most of Astralwalker's material. It's just there, take it or leave it.
I understand that this can be excused with the attitude of dismissing any science and need for further explanation, but hey, if it isn't an intellectual thing you're describing, and you don't want to make it easier for the intellectual people to 'get it', why even bother using language? I'm sure it'd be better conveyed by a hug or so.
However, it's good that you remind us of the beginning quote. If one takes it all as personal 'thoughts and conclusions' it becomes quite justifiable... it's just not presented as such along the way.
Please understand, I'm not trying to disrupt anything here, as mentioned before, for the big picture is beautiful and radiant. It's just the methods of presentation that I struggle with, and I think many others would as well, as already voiced.
I am convinced that none of us should be a sci-entist nor a be-lie-ver, but 'resonating' with what's written can be as easily manipulated as the 'science' behind many studies. So where does that leave me?
I don't know, but I just can't advocate too much of either side.