Sometimes, even when we have power, we shouldn’t express it. Other times when we are powerless in the face of the worlds spinning, we should add our force to its momentum.
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein.
Einstein would have made a great magician if he were not a scientist, but the two disciplines are not of necessity separate and are growing less and less so over time, again Law of Sympathy.
Those on the spiritual/metaphysical path were seeking truth and attracted truth. Those on the scientific path are seeking truth and attracting truth, and it’s from the same world they are getting it.
The magickal world is not dead. It is growing and is becoming better understood, and well… The Law of Sympathy is the basic network it’s all based on.
I will ask you a question, friends. If there is no difference between our “living matter” and non-living matter, then are we not forced to conclude that since we know we are alive, there is only life? Companion question, if we call our animating force “spirit” then would not the principles behind the Law of Sympathy imply a shared spirit?
Perhaps, unless dark matter is non-life? I cannot imagine matter as not life. As flesh is not blood, anti-matter is not matter, and just as my flesh is not your flesh necessarily, then dark matter is not normal matter. But life doesn’t seem to show any exclusions, down to the elements of DNA being found adrift in space itself. So any counter arguments?
(An astronomical probe was set up with a filter to collect dust samples and found DNA chemicals. They hadn’t formed strands, but they thought the chemicals were rare. Not strands, not formed into a pattern, just the base elements that could become strands, especially if they made planet fall.)
I don’t believe in non-living matter, only non-sentient matter. The Law of Sympathy would perhaps serve as a guide for establishing sentience. This might illustrate the principle in general. What are the parameters of sentience?
This is one definition of sentience. Sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception. Feeling, and in fact, many forms of matter show this sort of awareness. A responsiveness to energy and environmental shifts unique to its own material makeup. Sound, heat, they all differ between forms of matter.
Perhaps there may be something that is self aware, that we do not have the level of awareness to know it is aware yet. I would agree, and would offer that the seeming communication of qualities between sense objects can show us more of this universal sentience than people commonly know.
There doesn’t appear to be multiple forces at work in the universe, even according to science. They strongly suspect one grand force behind it all, and this force cannot be inimical to sentience. It cannot be a counter force, or we as thinking beings would not exist.
If two things are red, the only way red exists is in consciousness. Plants, and animals themselves, have been shown to change state, change color, which by the previous definition would imply sentience.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.