|
Dear Hugh and list readers,
I am to trying to decipher this one. For all that it may
be worth I don't think that the medium conveys something of power. If
it does it is only latent power. Information is all that we work
with. Nature has the power. All we are doing is inputing the
information with various homeopathic potencies. Of course there are
various way to do this through different mediums. To draw an analogy of
homeopathic potency with a computer. The computer has the
potential but without the information and programs it is
nothing. Similarly nature has the potential power and we feed it the
information in the form of a homeopathic potency to achieve the effect we
want. In fact we can draw an analogy that the whole physical world can
be describe as a giant computer feeding us information through our physical
senses to our brains and that the physicial world does not really
exist in this sense.
Peter
Cotterill.
>Dave,
> The last part of my email consisted of my
original brief notes and
>a recipe I started with. Because this was my
first time at making this
>potentised pepper I had to try different
potency until I found which one
>worked. D15 seems to be the one that
works.
> To answer your other questions. As with all potentised preps a
little
>goes a long way. You don't have to potentised the whole tank
full. The tank
>fully of water is only used as a carrier for the
potentised pepper so that
>it can be spread thinly and evenly over the
crop. Of course make sure the
>potentised liquid is mixed well in with
the tank water.
>
>Peter
Dear List Readers, (and please
someome send me the info to resubscribe to SANET, as this post should go
out.)
We seem to be laboring under two different paradigmal ideas. One
is that the medium conveys something of power--which it does. This is
expressed in the inverse square law where the potency diminishes in the
inverse square of the distance from the source.=Light and its behavior from
source, dispersing to the extremes, etc..
The other paradigm, too often
obscure, is that the medium conveys something of information.--which it does.
This is expressed in the fact that once an insect steps in a spider web it is
caught, and the whole game plan changes from that moment from one side of the
medium to the other.
Modern computing shows just how dependent we are
on the informational status of what we think we have in our computers
as power.
RETHINK
We must never forget that all of nature
conforms to the same laws as prevail in our computers and in our
(outdoors) fields. I grow spinach, lettuce, fine herbs. How do they
know to be so exquisite, so robust, with so little rainfall!? I'm programming
this information in, non-verbally, of course. I don't know how finely I can do
this but very, very equisitely, I'm sure. We all do this to varying
degrees.
Nature, as it happens, is intensely informational, as is shown
by natural responses to various homeopathic potencies--which contain only
patterns, nothing else of compelling power more forceful than water!
With homeopathy we are not levering the blocks of matter around with
wedges of various force, but rather we are coreographing the ballet of how
woods meets right-of-way, and field rotates with meadow, and how in the midst
of this market gardens and neighborhood dairies can exist--and, please,
let's forget the idea that more intensive regulations will protect us from the
mega-dairy problems.That's a comforting fiction for sophomores and freshmen.
The real envronment should be one we can live with one hundred years
back and one hundred years forward. We know people this old so we should
require this of our environmental standards.
In any event, we seem to
be working with both sets of beliefs, power AND information. Sometimes it
seems like power vs. information. I don't suppose there need be any conflict.
Is there?
Well, there seems to be, and I think we are all
guilty to whatever degrees--don't set oneself up for sanctimony. I think this
is an issue worth looking at. We work everyday with both sets of beliefs, and
somehow that isn't causing major crises.
I sure had a lot of
difficulty with people understanding how I can put the map of a property with
it's boundaries drawn in the well of my field broadcaster and expect the
broadcast to conform to those boundaries as marked.
But is there
really any conflict? Maybe we can live with this as is, but I believe we
should start looking at every thing we deal with from BOTH sets of view for
while and see what suggests itself.
I invite responses of every
sort.
Several people have told me I should read William Tiller, a
physisist from Stanford, U. in this regard. But his book was sold out at
ACRES. I'll catch up onthis later. It looks like this is an overlooked
dichotomy that has kept a lot of folks wallowing in the swamps of
half-reason.
Best,
Hugh Lovel
|
