Travel the Cosmos To Heal, To Grow, To Expand

Ode to Exploration, Foe to Dogma

Descriptions of the Universe reflect the theory of a researcher more than research findings.  Nonetheless, descriptions enable researchers to imagine what they might discover.  Then, they invent devices able to scope out those imagined possibilities.  Focus your thoughts on those devices for a moment.  Those devices associated to scientific investigation extend human senses beyond human limitations.  Point is this: fundamentally humans are very limited in what they can observe, but not as limited in what they can theorize.  

This one truth of scientific investigation is extremely significant to this discussion.  Humans utilize other tools outside their scope of experience or capacity to discover or to deduce their truths.  “Duh!” you say?  Before I explain why this is so important, I want to expose another tool used by scientist:  mathematics.  

Mathematics (at the theoretical level and less advanced) use computations, formulas, or algorithms which investigate concrete and abstract postulates.  Sometimes, computations are exact in their results.  Sometimes, computations measure the probability of something being factual or fictional.  Sometimes, computations abstract other mathematical abstractions and derive “answers” reflective of theorems. 

One more factor of scientific investigation I want to weave into this discussion is the “observer effect.”  Widely accepted now, scientists must admit that their hypotheses, their tools of observation, and the very moment of their observation, alters the results of their investigation, no matter what they are investigating.  

I am a social scientist as a Clinical Psychologist.  I am and was always surrounded by professionals in the fields of physics, sociology, psychology, artificial intelligence, mathematics and neurology.  I esteem and respect scientific methodologies, tools and scientific efforts to discover information.  I assert, nonetheless, that no scientists of integrity can assert that their conclusions are irrefutable Truths.  The scientists tools of investigation (devices, mathematics, observers) are too limited. 

I am also an ethereal mystic. I practice the meditations and healing arts of Reiki, Shamanic Soul Journeys, and Pranic energy to name a few.  I explore and use Astral Projection, Remote Viewing, Akashic Reading, Channeling or Mediumship to discover amazing possible domains and personalities.  My experiences using each of these tools seems amazing, heart-stoppingly awesome!  Yet, as with science, I could never declare my findings as irrefutable Truths. The mystics tools of investigation are also too limited, and the mystic’s “observer effect” is a hugely significant compounding variable (as scientist prefer to say).

As a scientist, I see no merit in being dogmatic.  As a mystic, I see no merit in being dogmatic.  Both are limited because humans are limited.    

Consider these four points for another moment.  Point one: Scientists and mystics are driven by the same passion to discover what this existence is all about.  What is this Universe, this experience, and these complexities surrounding us?  Point two: scientists and mystics both wish to use the answers to these questions to empower and evolve the human path.   Point three: neither the scientist nor the mystic has full, totality of understanding, and both the scientist and the mystic can only create possible interpretations of collected experiences.  Neither the scientist nor the mystic — no matter how enlightened and carefully researched — can authentically embrace any “finding” as an ultimate, unchallengeable, irrefutable conclusion.  

Nowadays, some scientists admit their mystical ponderings about how nature works, what consciousness might be, or what exists outside of form or beyond physical life.    Clearly their useful devices, math, and “observer effects” are intrinsically limiting and helpful.  Likewise, nowadays,  some mystics (as spiritual or religious teachers) rid themselves of dogmatic declarations.  For example, there may be more than one way to interpret sacred passages or practice the law of attraction.  Clearly, a mystic’s tools are, well, not so clear to the scientific observer but very meaningful to the mystical explorer.

Scientists and mystics steered by integrity now admit experiences need to be described as discoveries or adventures but not taught as absolute irrefutable Truths. Points-of-view are simply that; views from varying points produce different eye-witness accounts.    

Describing is a narrative art especially when the describer refrains from jumping to definitive conclusions.  Analyzing what is witnessed also is helpful until the analysis is embraced as conclusive dogma.  Mystics and Scientist describe, analyze and, oops, dogmatize.   

Dogmatism clogs the arteries of discovery for both the scientist and the mystic.  Why?:  Dogmas cause the following: 1) Researchers stop researching while they preach their dogmatic conclusions; 2) Students of researchers become passive, believing no more truths need be discovered; 3) Students and colleagues refrain from challenging the dogmatized findings, fearing embarrassment and rejection by their essential communities; and 4) Dogmas become societal constructs, governing future thought, and forcing research and conclusions to be blindly focused and limited.   In the presence of Dogma, descriptions and analysis of experiences can not be free to be investigated further. Progression of thought and evolution of perceptions are paralyzed when dogma reigns over scientific or mystical explorations.   

So, (here’s the goal of this entry): wonder if each of us – as scientists and mystics in our own fashion –  become open-minded explorers who learn from each other’s explorations, observations and tentative conclusions.  Also, wonder if we also share open-mindedly our own discoveries while NONE of us become dogmatic about our exciting and meaningful discoveries.  

Oh, I forgot to add, as you likely now know,  I am also an optimistic idealist.  I relish the image of our world flowing with humane respect, curiosity, open-mindedness and the awe of mutual discovery.  I long for conversations wherein narratives of someone’s experiences are enthusiastically shared with wonder and hypotheses.   It seems to me that we each are blind, insightful, limited, expanding, and passionate explorers and creators.  None of us needs to become slaves to anyone’s dogma, not even to our own intensely convincing but refutable Truths.   

Ode to Exploration, Foe to Dogma

Descriptions of the Universe reflect the theory of a researcher more than research findings.  Nonetheless, descriptions enable researchers to imagine what they might discover.  Then, they invent devices able to scope out those imagined possibilities.  Focus your thoughts on those devices for a moment.  Those devices associated to scientific investigation extend human senses beyond human limitations.  Point is this: fundamentally humans are very limited in what they can observe, but not as limited in what they can theorize.  

This one truth of scientific investigation is extremely significant to this discussion.  Humans utilize other tools outside their scope of experience or capacity to discover or to deduce their truths.  “Duh!” you say?  Before I explain why this is so important, I want to expose another tool used by scientist:  mathematics.  

Mathematics (at the theoretical level and less advanced) use computations, formulas, or algorithms which investigate concrete and abstract postulates.  Sometimes, computations are exact in their results.  Sometimes, computations measure the probability of something being factual or fictional.  Sometimes, computations abstract other mathematical abstractions and derive “answers” reflective of hypotheses. 

One more factor of scientific investigation I want to weave into this discussion is the “observer effect.”  Widely accepted now, scientists must admit that their hypotheses, their tools of observation, and the very moment of their observation, alters the results of their investigation, no matter what they are investigating.  

I am a social scientist as a Clinical Psychologist.  I am and was always surrounded by professionals in the fields of physics, artificial intelligence, mathematics and neurology.  I esteem and respect scientific methodologies, tools and scientific efforts to discover information.  I assert, nonetheless, that no scientists of integrity can assert that their conclusions are irrefutable Truths.  

I am also an ethereal mystic. I practice the meditations and healing arts of Reiki, Shamanic Soul Journeys, and Pranic energy to name a few.  I explore and use Astral Projection, Remote Viewing, Akashic Reading, Channeling or Mediumship to discover amazing possible domains and personalities.  My experiences using each of these tools seems amazing, heart-stoppingly awesome!  Yet, as with science, I could never declare my findings as irrefutable Truths.

As a scientist, I see no merit in being dogmatic.  As a mystic, I see no merit in being dogmatic.  Both are limited because humans are limited.    

Consider these four points for another moment.  Point one: Scientists and mystics are driven by the same passion to discover what this existence is all about.  What is this Universe, this experience, and these complexities surrounding us?  Point two: scientists and mystics both wish to use the answers to these questions to empower and evolve the human path.   Point three: neither the scientist nor the mystic has full, totality of understanding and both the scientist and the mystic can only create possible interpretations of collected experiences.  Neither the scientist nor the mystic — no matter how enlightened and carefully researched — can authentically embrace any “finding” as an ultimate, unchallengeable, irrefutable conclusion.  

Nowadays, some scientists admit their mystical ponderings about how nature works, what consciousness might be, or what exists outside of form or beyond physical life.    Clearly their useful devices, math, and “observer effects” are intrinsically limited and helpful.  Likewise, nowadays,  some mystics (as spiritual or religious teachers) rid themselves of dogmatic declarations.  For example, there may be more than one way to interpret sacred passages or practice the law of attraction.  

Scientists and mystics steered by integrity now admit experiences need to be described as discoveries or adventures but not taught as absolute irrefutable Truths. Points-of-view are simply that; views from varying points produce different eye-witness accounts.    

Describing is an fine art especially when the describer refrains from jumping to definitive conclusions.  Analyzing what is witnessed also is helpful until the analysis is embraced as conclusive dogma.  Why?:  Dogmas cause the following: 1) Researchers stop researching while they preach their dogmatic conclusions; 2) Students of researchers become passive believing no more truth need be discovered; 3) Students and colleagues refrain from challenging the dogmatized findings, fearing embarrassment and rejection by their essential communities; and 4) Dogmas become societal governing future thought, and forcing research and conclusions to be blindly focused and limited.   In the presence of Dogma, descriptions and analysis of experiences can not be free to be investigated further. Progression of thought and evolution of perceptions are paralyzed when dogma reigns over scientific or mystical explorations.   

So, (here’s the goal of this entry) how about if each of us – as scientists and mystics in our own fashion –  become open-minded explorers who learn from each other’s explorations, observations and tentative conclusions.  Also, how about if we also share open-mindedly our own discoveries while NONE of us become dogmatic about our exciting and meaningful discoveries.  

Oh, I forgot to add, as you likely now know,  I am also an optimistic idealist.  I relish the image of our world of humane respect, curiosity, open-mindedness and the awe of mutual discovery.  I long for conversations wherein narratives of someone’s experiences are enthusiastically shared with wonder and hypotheses.   It seems to me that we are each blind, insightful, limited, expanding, and passionate explorers and creators.  None of us needs to become slaves to anyone’s dogma, not even our own intensely convincing refutable Truths. 

Descriptions of the Universe reflect the theorist more than research findings.  Nonetheless, descriptions enable researchers to imagine what they might discover.  Then they invent devices able to scope out those imagined possibilities.  Focus your thoughts on those devices for a moment.  Those devices associated to scientific investigation extend human senses beyond human limitations.  Point is this: fundamentally humans are very limited in what they can observe.  

This one truth of scientific investigation is extremely significant to this discussion.  Humans utilize other tools outside their scope of experience or capacity to discover or to deduce their truths.  “Duh!” you say?  Before I explain why this is so important, I want to expose another tool used by scientist:  mathematics.  

Mathematics (at the theoretical level and less advanced) use computations, formulas, or algorithms which investigate concrete and abstract postulates.  Sometimes, computations are exact in their results.  Sometimes, computations measure the probability of something being factual or fictional.  Sometimes, computations abstract other mathematical abstractions and derive “answers” reflective of hypotheses. 

One more factor of scientific investigation I want to weave into this discussion is the “observer effect.”  Widely accepted now, scientists must admit that their hypotheses, their tools of observation, and the very moment of their observation alters the results of their investigation, no matter what they are investigating.  

I am a social scientist as a Clinical Psychologist.  I am and was always surrounded by professionals in the fields of physics, artificial intelligence, mathematics and neurology.  I esteem and respect scientific methodologies, tools and scientific efforts to discover information.  I assert, nonetheless, that no scientists of integrity can assert that their data collecting, tools of observations, analyses, hypotheses or conclusions are irrefutable Truths.  

I am also an ethereal mystic. I practice the meditations and healing arts of Reiki, Shamanic Soul Journeys, and Pranic energy to name a few.  I explore and use Astral Projection, Remote Viewing, Akashic Reading, Channeling or Mediumship to discover amazing possible domains.  My experiences of each of these tools has been amazing, heart-stoppingly awesome!  Yet, as with science, I could never declare my findings as objective, all-encompassing universal, irrefutable Truths.

As a scientist, I see no merit in being dogmatic.  As a mystic, I see no merit in being dogmatic.  Both are limited because humans are limited.    

Consider these four points for another moment.  Point one: Scientists and mystics are driven by the same passion to discover what this existence is all about.  What is this Universe, this experience, and these complexities surrounding us?  Point two: scientists and mystics both wish to use the answers to these questions to empower and evolve the human path.   Point three: neither the scientist nor the mystic has full, totality of understanding and both the scientist and the mystic can only create theories.  Neither the scientist nor the mystic — no matter how enlightened and carefully researched — can authentically embrace any “finding” as an ultimate, irrefutable, unchallengeable conclusion.  

Nowadays, some scientists admit their mystical ponderings about how nature works, what consciousness might be, or what exists outside of form or beyond physical life.    Clearly their useful tools, math, and “observer effects” are intrinsically limited.  Moreover, games of a scientists’ egos, politics or need for grant money can no longer disguise those limits.  Nowadays,  some mystics (as spiritual or religious teachers) rid themselves of dogmatic declarations.  For a small example, there may be more than one way to interpret a passage in sacred writings or more than one way to explain how laws of attraction works.  Moreover, power and money greedy religious leaders are spotted more easily.   For both these scientists and mystics, experiences are described as discoveries or adventures but not taught as absolute generic Truths. 

Points-of-view is simply that, viewing from a point and describing what is witnessed.   Describing is an art especially when the describer refrains from jumping to definitive conclusions.  Analyzing what is witnessed is helpful until the analysis is embraced as a dogma.  Why?:  Dogmas cause the following: 1) Researchers stop researching while they preach their dogmatic conclusions; 2) Students of researchers become passive because they believe their is nothing more to discover; 3) Students and colleagues fear that if they question or challenge the dogmatized findings, that they will be rejected by their essential communities; and 4) Dogmas become societal constructs around which all future thought, research and conclusions are blindly focused.  

So, (here’s the goal of this entry) how about each of us as scientists and mystics in our own fashion becoming open-minded explorers who learn from each other’s explorations, observations and tentative conclusions.  Also,  how about if we also share open-mindedly our own discoveries while NONE of us become dogmatic about our exciting and meaningful discoveries.  

Oh, I forgot to add, as you likely now know,  I am also an optimistic idealist.  I dream a world of respect, curiosity, open-mindedness and the awe of mutual discovery.  I long for the conversations when narratives of someone’s experiences are enthusiastically shared with wonder and hypotheses.   It seems to me that we are each blind, insightful, limited, expanding, and passionate explorers and creators.  But, none of us need to become slaves to dogma.  

   

Success Through Power of Gratitude with Sara Wiseman 10/14 by Dr Carol Francis | Self Help Podcasts.

Join an hour of motivational, inspirational and directional insights with Sara Wiseman who has over come cancer, divorce, financial angst, self-esteem concerns using the focusing power of gratitude.  October 14, 10AM Los Angeles Time on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dr-carol-francis/2013/10/14/success-through-power-of-gratitude-with-sara-wiseman

Write and Publish Your Book with Randy Peyser 10/07 by Dr Carol Francis | Self Help Podcasts.

 

Enjoy the meaningfulness and usefulness of this program

Ancient Healing Energy, Reiki, Now Integrated in Medical Treatments, Athletic Arenas, Cancer Centers & Trauma Interventions in the United States by Author Raven Keyes

Reiki, an ancient healing power, now is used in hospital care, surgery rooms, doctors’ offices, clinics, cancer centers, even the locker room of professional sports teams and Raven Keyes spearheaded this medical shift. Raven Keyes traces this progression in her newest book, “The Healing Power of Reiki,” and award winning true account.

  • Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friend

Raven Keyes author of “The Healing Power of Reiki” an ancient healing tool now used in modern western medicine.

Surgeon’s hands and skills and western pharmaceuticals now can be coupled with Reiki in Cancer Centers, injured athletic treatment and trauma response teams.

New York, New York (PRWEB) September 10, 2013

“The Healing Power of Reiki,” authored by Raven Keyes, reveals how Reiki, an ancient healing technique, is entering the mainstream medical treatments, surgical procedures, athletic injury assistance, cancer centers and trauma response teams.

Raven Keyes’ award-winning book reveals true and moving stories about how Reiki succored the trauma team and survivors of 911 and provided relief for cancer and surgical procedures. Keyes is a major trailblazers helping this ancient practice, Reiki, into the operating room of Dr. Mehmet Oz, the locker room of the New York Giants and the Port Authority Police Department trailer at Ground Zero. Her forays as a Reiki master into Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, the world of professional sports, and to those suffering after 9/11 are riveting tales of triumph over adversity.

Raven Keyes was the first Reiki master to work in an operating room of renowned surgeons, such as Dr. Oz, at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center. She brought Reiki to the NFL, NBA and to those affected by the events of September 11th. Raven Keyes work as a Reiki Master at Ground Zero was honored as a “New Yorker of the Week” on news channel NY-1.

The Healing Power of Reiki won the 2013 COVR Visionary Award in the category of Alternative Health and is featured on the Columbia Surgery website:http://www.columbiasurgery.org/news/books_oz.html

Ms. Keyes will be on the Dr. Carol Francis Radio Show on Monday, September 23rd at 1:00 PM EDT linked at: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dr-carol-francis/2013/09/23/reiki-healing-energy-research–author-raven-keyes .

Reiki Healing Energy, Research – Author Raven Keyes 09/23 by Dr Carol Francis | Self Help Podcasts.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 336 other followers