--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hagen J. Holtz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between a "woo-woo" > and a person, who has no problems to go one step further. It > seems too often as if the world was only distinguishable > between the normal crazy ones (the main stream) and the > real crazy guys (those, who are not able to stand the > monotony of the main-stream anymore but do not find > balancing alternatives and therefore tilt). I was always > interested in those, who just fell somewhere in between.
You'll find a few here. :-) You'll also find a few for whom the woo-woo reactions extend to their claimed experiences, not just intellectual theories about things. To quote Roy Batty, "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe..." > And only, I assure you, for practical reasons. It is the realm, > where you really will find joy of surfing on the wave. But > indeed, "pegasus' flying behind the moon-theories" had also > never been of great interest for me. Matters have to be always > lying on the border of what could be possible or at least probable. > > Thanks for at least having found out that I do not seem to be > totally "woo-woo". ´You seem to be a good doctor and so it > gives hope to me (for others and for myself as well) :-))). Just for the record, since you may have me confused with some other poster, I am not a doctor. The closest I've ever gotten to that status is "playing doctor," something I was fond of in my youth and never outgrew. :-) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: TurquoiseB > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:17 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Intelligent stuff ([FairfieldLife] Re: Stupid stuff.) > > > Hagen, suggesting a "reading assignment": > > You will really get "fever" from it and your brain will > > be starting to work in double speed, like a horse, which > > cannot be harnessed anymore. > > Ah, that explains your writing style. :-) > > > Peter Plichta is one of the modern representatives of > > these ideas, but still moderate enough not provoke people > > to call him totally mad. > > You might want to read more of him. :-) > > Seriously, thanks for replying. This is all far too > woo-woo and ungrounded for me. I was just curious as > to whether you were as woo-woo as you seemed from a > few things you dropped casually into your posts. That > now seems to be settled. I have no problem with you > believing the things you believe, but I don't find > those things fascinating enough (or, for that matter, > real enough) to discuss, given the posting limits here. > > Do keep posting, however. And you might consider > having discussions with Nablusos1008 and a few > others. You'd get along. He knows "special stuff" > about Maitreya and the Space Brothers the same way > you know "special stuff" about physics. > > May you grow up to be a floater, > May your tin foil hat always fit, > May you always know the truth > When others see only shit. > May you always be on the program, > May your flowing robes be long, > May you stay forever young, > Forever young, forever young, > May you stay forever young. > - Bob Dylan, Forever Young, the TM bootleg version > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hagen J. Holtz" > <hagen.j.holtz@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hagen J. Holtz" > > <hagen.j.holtz@> wrote: > > > > > > The counterforce to gravity has already been detected by > > > the Austrian scientist Viktor Schauberger in the beginning > > > of the last century. He named it "levitation". One of his > > > sayings was that Newton should not have been taking so much > > > effort on finding out how the apple fell from the tree but > > > how it came up on the tree. > > > > I have to admit that this is one of the most > > bizarre sayings I've ever heard attributed to > > a scientist. Not that that's a bad thing. It's > > like physics done by Steven Wright. > > > > http://www.weather.net/zarg/ZarPages/stevenWright.html > > > > I do not know what Wright used to say, but there had been quite a > few people who already went into the right direction of explorating > real nature mechanics. Schauberger's eagerness started as typically > with some key-experience. He was working as a forester in Austria, > once crossing a rapid creek, where he tried to lean on some stick, > touching an alleged black stone. That "stone" hatched out to get a > stand a few inches further up the stream, not showing the slightest > movement. He recognized that it was a trout, bending its body almost > to a sphere, in order to resist against the drift without spending the > slightest visible effort. Schauberger found out, that the trout was > following the patterns of this new force by its own nature > automatically, and gave it the name "levitational force". He > discovered new flow theories, which could get verified by the > University uf Stuttgart, Germany. Adolf Hitler became so much > interested in him, that he conscripted Schauberger to wrk in a team, > designing the first jet fighter in the world. > > > > > Schauberger was too ahead and too far away from the interests > > > of economical thinking. Therefore his theories got annihilated > > > like Tesla's as well by "clever" forces. > > > > Now you're starting to sound like Steven Wright. :-) > > > > Schauberger, similar like Tesla, was able to deliver plans, where it > would have been able to conctruct machines working with so-called > "zero-point" or "space-energy". This was a great thorn is the eyes of > certain people, and it was interesting that Texans of all people came > to buy him out from the market. So most of his plans must still be > lying somewhere locked in a safe in your country. By the way, it was > also interesting that, for the sake of consistency of Einstein's > theory the idea about the existence ether (akasha) in physics got > obliterated. This leads even to the inconsequence, that light for > example does not have any media left, through which to travel. One > should write a book about all "life-lies" in nature sciences and > publish it along with more consecutive theories. I hope that a good > team of meditators would do it in some especially founded > research-institute. Time seems to be ripe. > > > > Seriously, if you feel like it, can you explain > > how you find the Schauberger saying above profound? > > Funny, I can see it being. But you seem to see some > > profundity in it that I do not. > > > > It would blast this forum to go deeper into it by now but the > profundity of his sayings is striking. He also found out that an > equilibrium is never a 1:1 case but a 2:1 event, and his reasoning is > striking. You will really get "fever" from it and your brain will be > starting to work in double speed, like a horse, which cannot be > harnessed anymore. Peter Plichta is one of the modern representatives > of these ideas, but still moderate enough not provoke people to call > him totally mad. Plichta, by the way was the first to generate the > Diesel-oil from silicon. > > > > Also, I'm intrigued by "the interests of economical > > thinking" and "annihilated by clever forces." Both > > of these seem to be a veritable goldmine of weirdness > > that I just can't wait to hear about. Really. > > > > There are so many inventions, which could make the world's economics > come to a sudden halt, starting from the everlasting nylon-stocking, > continuing with the unbreakable car, the non-destroyable bulb, the > washing machine based on sonographic waves up to the energy unit in > every house, which could make the individual be totally independent > from any power company. I wished for a team, working on it in joint > effort, re-designing a new economic world beyond capitalism and > communism, just going by the synergetic effects in nature. I will soon > be opening a website, where I will be advertising for it. The group > should grow up to 10,000 participants, so that we add to the so-called > "Schumann-waves" anothers fascinating chapter regarding brain-development. > > > > > In order to get a sense-making picture about the unified field, > > > you have to overcome quantitative thinking, which is by the way > > > still a challenge for science theories. The quantitative approach > > > has failed due to the fact that patterns based on quantitative > > > assumptions always end up in an infinite regress. Something for > > > the bedlam. > > > > > > Your conclusions, Sam, are therefore a bit funny and, I think > > > you know it, meddlesome. > > > > "Meddlesome" has me curious, too. I mistook what Sam > > said as merely stating an opinion. How do you perceive > > that as "meddlesome?" > > > > He put it, as if he knew it. But knowledge has the strange attribute > to always call for a new believe and the new believe for a new > knowledge. An eternal alternation of paradigms. Knowledge, which comes > to an end, goes for funeral, therefore we have to be careful with > final statements as Sam did, especially if they do not show any effort > to being stark. >
