Critical Errors in Thinking and Facts

[September]

I came by this site through other activist sites in order to find like
minded people who want to actually find a way to move America back to
citizens hands instead of corporations, etc.
I really like the idea of this approach to restructuring the global
population into the paradigm outlined. I am an uncommon person. All of
my life I've never had any fear or inclination to abide by common
social thinking. I've always been analyzing, observing people and
their interactions, what they say and do, what is congruent and
incongruent in the way people reason and act in regards to
institutions such as government, churches, socities, etc. I've been
quite fortunate that I'm highly eager to acquire any and all
knowledge, because it seems no matter what I learn, it always applies
to situations I find myself in or observing. I've also been fortunate
to accrue a wide base of experience in many different types of fields
of work, and because of my ability to learn, my repertoire of
information and experience is vast.
To this end I wanted to point out a couple of things that right away
seemed glaringly incorrect in the explanation of how and why people
learned historically, how they 'are' today based on scientific
studies, and the application of this information as the foundation of
the new paradigm.
First, in the matter of DNA versus environment. The statements made
are that environment is the cause for people to be the way they are. I
would like to point out that the twin study of the last few decades
shows DNA is so significant that separated twins marry women with
identical names and body types, go into the same profession, have the
same hairstyles and mannerisms, and have similar views on faith among
other things. It doesn't matter to me either way, but for someone who
was quite excited to find a group with such high goals I was quickly
dissuaded from joining the group because of the apparent lack
investigation into or keeping up with new research, or disregarding
the research. One can't build a future society based on a paradigm
that is basically scientifically flawed, or based on a view that the
person creating it decided what would be the 'truth' or not. It would
be better to show the research as is, and then show the why one aspect
of the research is more valuable for the paradigm to accept as a
foundation logic.
The second was stating that prayer was ineffective. I don't believe in
religion, and I don't advocate a belief in God. However, I am open to
all possibilities. But I don't need to believe that prayer is
effective one way or another, as there has also been research done in
hospitals regarding prayer that has proved praying does have benefit
if done a certain way. The study was done in Intensive Care Units, it
was a controlled double blind study. None of the staff knew who was
being prayed for at any time or in any manner. It was found that
people who were prayed for left the Intensive Care Unit were able to
be weaned from life support devices more quickely, and left the ICU an
average of 3 or more days sooner. However, prayer that was
specifically aimed at helping a person was not effective. In other
words, if they prayed that the patient's temperature would return to
normal, that wasn't effective. However if they prayed for the person
by just thinking about the person and sending energy then that was
what helped them improve and leave the ICU sooner.
There is also the study or 'challenge' done in Washington D.C. over
one summer. The Police Chief was approached and was told that a group
of people meditating in the city could significantly lower the
homicide rate. Although extremely sceptical, the Police Chief was in
favor of anything that could possibly lower the homicide rate, so he
said, why not? At the end of the 3 months in summer, a homicide rate
had been predicted based on all the elements that affect the rates.
The actual homicide rate was around 30% lower!
The other thing I didn't see mentioned at all is anything regarding
the research generated from the field of Quantum Physics. This field,
more than any other, has true scientific methods that show how to
manipulate the environment in order to achieve a stated objective.
Some of this was shown in the docufilm 'What the Bleep Do We Know?!"
It shows many renowned researchers/professors in several fields
explaining their fields research and how it affects the world. The
film is a little New Age, and once you overcome the inclusion of JD
Knight who is a medium but who doesn't bring much to the table as she
'channels' someone who attempts to explain to you how to think. She
doesn't do it well and it turns out that the information is actually a
bad rehash of Bruce Lipton's work in his field. He's a cell biologist
and a former medical school professor and research scientist. He has
written a couple of books, and explains how science shows that events
outside the cell, especially those from the neurological network such
as beliefs and thoughts, are what trigger DNA and gene production, not
the other way around as according to the old science model,.
http://www.brucelipton.com
I just wanted to bring these to your attention so that maybe some
things can be reworded a little so that your premise can be congruent
with the research, thereby eliminating the potential for any hideous
headlines about making false statements. I also thought that you might
either want to start incorporating these other fields in your work to
either speed up the transformation process or have more tools at your
disposal, or keep a close eye on them for what comes out of the
ongoing research. The best of luck to you.

[Nick Polimeni]

Hi, September,

Welcome.

I'm not sure you've noticed, but this forum is a computer applications development for use in web sites and so on....

Your topic is very interesting, and there is a better place for it at the international TZM Forum here:

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=listcat&catid=1&Itemid=100115&lang=en. You can repost it there, and I'm sure you'll get more people responding.

Cheers,

Nick