--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > Do tell us about the actual principles that I haven't > > understood in all these years reading about it. > > That's been done already hasn't it?
No it hasn't. Not by a long chalk. I want a mechanism, statements like "as above so below" are not mechanisms. A mechanism would be something like gravity pulling the water around the brain around which might affect mood and behaviour at certain times. See, it has physical principles behind it but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny as gravity is incredibly weak and a bus going past your house affects your brain more than Jupiter ever could. You may think that the "quality of the moment" allegedly being an art and not a science (as if anything can avoid being both) absolves it of the need for a physical mechanism but you'd be wrong because you are implying connection or communication, therefore there has to be a way disparate objects are connected. Even with synchronicity there would have to be a dependable principle, though it would also have to explain why it's so unexplainably erratic. This connection or communication has to be part of the principle of being able to make predictions from inside the system I mentioned in my previous post. If it isn't, you've got some explaining to do on what evasion you are falling back on.
