Frequency and the Force

thomaswfaulkner wrote:
There is no physical evidence of the love that my grandmother once had for me outside my ability to recall it from my own visceral experience.

You are incorrect. When your grandmother was alive she could be examined for evidence. People could watch her actions and ask her questions and find out about the love she had for you. After her death others that knew her can convey their observations and show that in her actions and the things she said she loved you. Her writings after her death can be examined and those can show proof of that love as well. If your grandmother loved you there are a myriad of ways to prove it.

Uzima Moto wrote: Music, or whatever aide you use, serves to relax or focus the mind.. it's not necessarily the frequencies themselves. Your "soul" exists as its own energy which can somewhat tune in to these things. Not in a material sense that I know of, but more that music can set the tone of your personal vibrations..

Our soul has its own vibration, working on a level I don't think material means could interfere with.. at most they can set a mood or possibly disturb the natural processes of the brain..

If your soul exists as energy that can "tune in" but it is not material, how does it affect a vibration of the physical? If it is not physical, how does it vibrate anything? How does something that is not physical disturb a physical brain? It cant vibrate the air or matter if its not some form of physical so I would like you to explain this process in detail.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

thomaswfaulkner wrote:
There is no physical evidence of the love that my grandmother once had for me outside my ability to recall it from my own visceral experience.

You are incorrect. When your grandmother was alive she could be examined for evidence. People could watch her actions and ask her questions and find out about the love she had for you. After her death others that knew her can convey their observations and show that in her actions and the things she said she loved you. Her writings after her death can be examined and those can show proof of that love as well. If your grandmother loved you there are a myriad of ways to prove it.

Valid point. There is evidence that her love once existed, but it would be difficult to measure it now outside of my own visceral interpretation. It's much less of the question was there love, but rather, even after her passing, measuring the extent of it, it's depth, is something felt.

Reading letters, looking at old pictures, and talking with family can validate the physical existence of the love which was; but being able to observe that love and how it manifests into the person I am today, is a subjective knowing. She is not alive to produce more love, but in experiencing the depth of her physical love, it's no "not real" in that sense.

thomaswfaulkner wrote: Valid point. There is evidence that her love once existed, but it would be difficult to measure it now outside of my own visceral interpretation. It's much less of the question was there love, but rather, even after her passing, measuring the extent of it, it's depth, is something felt.

Reading letters, looking at old pictures, and talking with family can validate the physical existence of the love which was; but being able to observe that love and how it manifests into the person I am today, is a subjective knowing. She is not alive to produce more love, but in experiencing the depth of her physical love, it's no "not real" in that sense.

Of course, by discounting all the actual evidence as you suggest, the actual experience of the love is a wholly subjective one. A component of the human condition as manifested in the archetypes you experience in the subconscious as an aspect of your grandmother.

Uzima Moto wrote: Everything is based on vibration. Everything is moving yet at rest. Matter is just about the lowest vibrational state energy/spirit manifests as..

See, I wouldn't have that much of a problem if you took any effort to make this seem like a religious or at least metaphorical thing. But instead you try and sound as if you mean it literally, and you utilize well-established terms with mostly sharp usages, both colloquially and in specific fields. And there is no need for that, unless you are trying to make it sound more credible by putting in fancy words of latin origin often used in the sciences. That's why I take issue with this again and again, because it is abusing the trust we have in disciplines that brought us our prosperous civilization in order to boost what would only stand in the way if we put it on the same platform. Vibration can be motion depending on what we are talking about, but it cannot be rest. What something very similar to "based on vibration" means is something I asked Yabu in the very beginning, perhaps you can now enlighten me. Energy is not a synonym to spirit. And judging by what you say about it, clearly when you speak of matter, you either are speaking of something none of the rest of us think of when we do, or none of your experience, study and research yielded a way to express what you mean in roughly similar terms, because that sentence and your elaboration on it in a later post sounds nothing like any description of matter that produces testable predictions.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

Gisteron wrote: What does "based on frequency" mean in this context?

I'd assume frequency would be the same as any percieveabke or measurable for of energy. Sound, cell phone signal, light, seismic activity... All measured in waves or vibration (the peaks and pits between waves).

Well assumptions are really meaningless aren't they. So where does this force frequency fall on the electromagnetic spectrum. If we can detect sound and cell phones and light and seismic activity why cant we detect the force?

Point taken. But this point also assumes that the Force is an outside or "other type" of energy rather than energy itself. If it is energy itself then everything is the force and all emanations of cell phones, light, sound, etc. are all forms or manifestations of the force. So either the Force is the "all" or it is a child/offspring of the "all" and therefore a "type of".

Does this make sense? In my opinion there's no point calling it THE Force if there is another force, greater, lesser or equal to.

Yea, but if we make the Force just another name for energy (we already have a name for energy and more names for individual types of it, too, why on earth would we need another one?), now it becomes something measureable, quantifiable. Now there is so little mystery left, and people can now be right or wrong about what they say about it. There will no doubt come the objection that this is "reductionist"... Do we even want to define it with any precision? Who knows...

ZealotX wrote: Point taken. But this point also assumes that the Force is an outside or "other type" of energy rather than energy itself. If it is energy itself then everything is the force and all emanations of cell phones, light, sound, etc. are all forms or manifestations of the force. So either the Force is the "all" or it is a child/offspring of the "all" and therefore a "type of".

Does this make sense? In my opinion there's no point calling it THE Force if there is another force, greater, lesser or equal to.

Agreed. Now my next question is how does anyone jump to the conclusion that it has intelligence or is sentient or has a will? How does one convince another of their ability to manipulate this energy outside of the cell phone or light or sound.. but using only the mind?

My interpretation of the "moving yet at rest" bit is like if you look at a desk. It appears to be at rest.. solid static object. Yet it is made up of the lego blocks of the periodic table.

If you break down the elements into smaller particles, those particles are moving causing a certain pattern of "vibration".

The slower the movement ("vibration") the more dense/solid the object becomes (example water vapor > rain > ice)

This part of the understanding is physical science.

However energy is "likened" to spirit in a religious/metaphorical reality. When a japanese person asks you "genkii da ne?" (sorry for my rough japanese) they're asking if you are in good spirits which is an observation based on your "energy". Low energy = low spirit. High energy = high spirit. There's no direct correlation from your molecules and their energy output to your "spirits". So again, there's a point where physical science ends and metaphysics or spirituality or whatever you want to call it, begins. A LOT of people use "vibration" in this more metaphysical construct and it's pretty much a synonym for an expression of energy.

There is a saying in one or more spiritual systems that says "as above so below".

If one understands things on the lower level it is easier to understand things on the higher level. Vibration on the lower level (physical) is like unto vibration on the higher level (spiritual). I apologize if this doesn't make sense but I didn't want to write a full length thesis.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: Point taken. But this point also assumes that the Force is an outside or "other type" of energy rather than energy itself. If it is energy itself then everything is the force and all emanations of cell phones, light, sound, etc. are all forms or manifestations of the force. So either the Force is the "all" or it is a child/offspring of the "all" and therefore a "type of".

Does this make sense? In my opinion there's no point calling it THE Force if there is another force, greater, lesser or equal to.

Agreed. Now my next question is how does anyone jump to the conclusion that it has intelligence or is sentient or has a will? How does one convince another of their ability to manipulate this energy outside of the cell phone or light or sound.. but using only the mind?

excellent question / segue.

This is probably where I myself spit ways with the op. Because in my opinion (which is only that) the force doesn't have a base "form" of its own but is rather expressed in the forms that it becomes through different processes such as fusion or such as mitosis or such as photosynthesis. In each case, energy is converted from one form to another. And in these processes energy is physically manipulated. So, to me, this is the basic "manipulation of the force" and when we consciously convert energy from one form to another we're applying our own will to the force because we are also manifestations of the force; meaning that the force doesn't have a brain without a physical brain or some kind of "media" on which to process information. It cannot "think" without that. But... if it evolves forms that can think... and if those thinking organisms are linked then the Force can think through them.

There's a jump between physical possibility to some kind of mysticism that I think is probably where a lot of us will find disagreement. I don't believe thought is possible absent a brain while other people believe in spirits. There are all types of unexplained phenomenon but I'm just not convinced. Likewise, we have the IDEA of telepathic communication. That doesn't mean the idea is real. If we lived in a time where language was very simple like 50 words in the whole language then it wouldn't be so hard to look at someone's face and deduce intent, meaning, even limited words. Grunts, clicks, and guttural sounds can further indicate ideas until the language becomes more complex and then even when we use long words we often still mistake each other's meaning. But could there be some kind of psychic link? I simply have no scientific (observable) reason to believe so. The same is true with telekinesis. There have been interesting and odd experiments with "remote viewing" and tons of people believe certain psychics and telepaths are real but until we understand the invisible mechanisms making these things possible they will be disregarded by the scientific mind. Could we be wrong? Absolutely. Somehow subatomic particles can be tethered together and there is a new scientific frontier in quantum physics with the existence of even quantum computers. So again, could we be wrong? Absolutely.

Now the ability for some humans to be more "sensitive" and therefore able to manipulate is somewhat like the idea that some people are more sensitive to spirits and can see them or hear them. In some families this seems more prevalent. My wife's included in that and its hard not to believe her when she says she saw someone and later found out that they had just died. There is a wealth of human experiences that few will talk about because they don't want the stigma; almost like the whole concept of mutants and x-men.

In order for me to accept certain things are possible I'd have to at least have a theory on the connection between the mind and its sensitivity and ability to interact with energy. A computer seems like a magical box if you think about everything it can do. If you didn't understand that the screen is displaying a matrix of data and that data can be easily manipulated, you could look at computer graphics and think the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were real. The computer is manipulating energy but its not doing so directly. It's not operating on the same level of reality that you're seeing. It's simply converting electricity to data and manipulating that data through a language. For that to work involves a lot of design and engineering and yet plants use solar technology without any programming. How are they smart enough to do it?

This is the challenge.

There is an intelligence to the design but that doesn't mean there is an intelligent designer. If this intelligent design exists in nature how far does it extend? Perhaps further than we think. And if we assume the design is limited to what we can see... well.... we definitely won't be bending any spoons any time soon. Perhaps my wife isn't seeing spirits but rather her own minds attempt, utilizing her imagination, to translate the "data loss" from this spiritual connection into a kind of "holographic" perceived image that she can mentally interact with. Because of the lack of science it's hard to say.