Ian Weinberg en Publishers & Bloggers, Healthcare, English Developer and facilitator of neuro-coaching program. Neurosurgeon in practice • NeuroSurge - neuromodulation 8/10/2016 · 1 min de lectura · 1,3K

Perhaps we ought to read the stars?

Perhaps we ought to read the stars?

The intrinsic fear of insecurity has pervaded the human condition ever since the beginning of recorded time. This fear manifests in the collective defense of the familiar and of the status quo – the comfort zone. Those that have presented radically new ideas and concepts and have challenged the status quo have invariably been quickly silenced. It’s just too inconvenient to entertain radically new ideas and their implications unless they offer an immediate benefit to the existing comfort zone.

Sadly, this bias has been carried over into the realm of science. This is most unfortunate because the scientific environment aspires to the highest ethics of human endeavor where anything and everything of us and our environments ought to be studied with healthy curiosity, logic and integrity so as to further our collective understanding. As a result, the gatekeepers of scientific research and their high priests have ordained what is ‘true science’ as opposed to what is ‘pseudo-science’ . Pseudo-science incorporates subjects which are regarded as undesirable and if research is pursued in these areas, serious threats to existing tenure and standing will inevitably occur. ‘Undesirable’ subjects include astrology, parapsychology and all ‘fringe’ health-enhancing modalities. Undesirable topics are inconvenient for the scientific establishment to engage with and integrate and so through the considerable muscle of the scientific community, are quickly suppressed. An illustration of this was the discrediting and excommunication of Rupert Sheldrake, an eminent cell biologist, who dared to postulate a radically new biological theory (Theory of Formative Causation), components of which he additionally validated through original research. In fact, Ted Talks removed his lecture under pressure from their own scientific advisors!

An so it is with some amusement that I note the publication recently of hard scientific evidence showing the significant effects that planetary configurations have on the sun’s electromagnetic field. Why am I amused? Because in addition to its self-defeating bias, the scientific world is an unintegrated place with a short collective memory. Specifically as regards astrology, through the inconvenience caused at the time of its publication the science world forgot about the thesis of a highly respected astrophysicist, Percy Seymour. Percy Seymour studied the work of psychologist and statistician, Michel Gauquelin who showed significant relationships between planetary alignment of five planets and success in specific vocations. Percy Seymour showed that it wasn’t the direct effect of planetary configuration on humans on earth that was the operative influence. Rather, through resonance, the planets modulated the sun’s electromagnetic field which in turn had a direct influence upon the earth’s magnetic field. The earth’s magnetic field has been shown to have significant effects on animal (including humans) physiology and behavior as catalogued in the science of magneto-biology.

Well, well .... full circle. We’re not alone. And we seem to control less and less of our extended environment and our behavior as we discover more influences which come to bear upon our small little corner in this vast cosmos - octaves of electromagnetic influences! Best to remain humble and respectful.





                                                        Copyright reserved - Ian Weinberg 2016

Ian Weinberg 21/12/2017 · #14

#13 My belief is that there are powerful determinants in regard to our subjectivity. It is our subjectivity which becomes the driver of choices. Therefore, in this respect, much of what happens to us in the course of our lives results from the influential nature-nurture determinants. In terms of change, again this will reflect the intrinsic elements within our subjectivity which determine our potential for change. I would summarize this by saying that although there is still the possibility for random change of direction in regard to our life paths, the strong deterministic elements dampen this down to a significant degree.

Kamini Vyas 21/12/2017 · #13

#5 @Ian Weinberg All my life I've been hearing two things that are completely contradictory to each other.
1. " Everything in our life is destined."
2. "It's only through determination and hard work that one can change the destiny."
Sir, what's your call on this?

Kamini Vyas 21/12/2017 · #12

#4 I'd request you to enlighten me on the same. Thanks.

Kamini Vyas 21/12/2017 · #11

#2 To some extent, I do agree with you. What science has done for us? I think science has greatly improved the way we live. Unfortunately, it's our greed that we've exploited the blessings science has offered us with. For example, nuclear weapons were meant for protection. Technology evolved to facilitate our lifestyle but we are taking advantage of it. It's actually our comfort zone that has turned this blessing into a curse.

Pamela 🐝 Williams 2/1/2017 · #10

This was amusing Ian. Okay, so I do believe the alignment of planets influence all animal life. I know this because of the insomnia I suffer at every full moon. I also watch for when they say Mercury is in Retrograde, because I know if I'm depending on an electronic device to complete some task that there is a high chance that something is going to go wrong with that device. Why? In your words "Rather, through resonance, the planets modulated the sun’s electromagnetic field which in turn had a direct influence upon the earth’s magnetic field." and in my experience Mercury in Retrograde seems to be a time when this influence is strong. So I save often, both on my hard drive and a thumb drive I keep plugged into my computer. I've lost too many hours of work to say; coincidence. So there, it's confirmed, Pam watches the stars :-) or at least the Moon and Mercury.

+1 +1
Ian Weinberg 8/10/2016 · #9

#8 @Deb Helfrich thanks for that. I sincerely believe that we are evolving into a new scientific space as we speak. The old has not provided adequate answers. The substrate for 'legitimate' enquiry has narrowed significantly as more and more concepts have become inconvenient for incorporation into existing models. I would name Rupert Sheldrake and physicist Dean Radin amongst several others, who are birthing a new science.

+1 +1
Deb 🐝 Helfrich 8/10/2016 · #8

Ah, Rupert Sheldrake has done some fascinating science. The easiest to approach is around how dogs know when their owners are coming home. And here is a pertinent quote from his book titled "Morphic Resonance"

"Although evidence is piling up that cosmology is evolutionary, old habits of thought die hard. Most scientists take eternal Laws of Nature for granted – not because they have thought about them in the context of the Big Bang, but because they haven't.
Laws anthropomorphize because what are laws in relation to nature, and there is no parallel in nature for monarchs or parliaments or congresses. The legal metaphor is incoherent.
I suggest a new possibility. The regularities of nature are not imposed on nature from a transcendent realm, but evolve within the universe. What happens depends on what has happened before. Memory is inherent in nature. It is transmitted by a process called morphic resonance, and works through fields called morphic fields."

This is in parallel with all of the studies about embodied cognition, wherein our senses of very subtle things influence our behavior in very marked ways. Of course, we are in many ways just as invisibly effected by the macro world as the micro world. The age of rational intellect as the supreme force in the universe is all but over.

It is only human to think about things. It is socialized dogma to find certain things not worth thinking about.

I am quite eager to surrender to the possibilities that I am so far unable to fathom.

+3 +3
Chas ✌️ Wyatt 8/10/2016 · #6

@Ian Weinberg, Velikovsky's theories about planetary collisions were laughed at by the scientific community,but, are now regarded seriously by that same community. The theory of floating Tektonic plates on the Earth's magma was once also scoffed at. If it weren't for the moon's pull we would not have tides and the seas would essentially be dead. Astrology is based on a twelve planetary system. Planet x, a tenth planet is becoming more and more accepted by the scientific community as well as a possible 11th planet. Many esoteric teachings and beliefs are beginning to be accepted by science as not just being cloaked in the veil of myth and folktales, but, being rooted in reality.

+3 +3