32018 Responseshttp://www.nullifidian.net/2007/07/01/floods-are-judgment-on-society/The+Telegraph%3A+Floods+are+judgment+on+society+-+CofE+Bishops2007-07-01+13%3A32%3A31nullifidian to “The Telegraph: Floods are judgment on society – CofE Bishops”

1. Bubba on July 1st, 2007 2:34 pm

   In case anyone’s interested, I recently posted about gay marriage and it can be found at http://bubbasoundsoff.com/2007/06/24/deflating-dobsons-rhetoric/

   Bubba

2. Gabriella Kortsch on July 2nd, 2007 8:37 am

   Hah!

   I couldn’t agree more … windbags, indeed!

   But what about looking at it from this point of view: if we are indeed all responsible for our lives, hence for what we do, what we think, and – also – for what we feel, then is it not possible that quantum theory’s concept of inter-relatedness, i.e., we are all one if we go back down to the most sub-atomic particles (already fore-shadowed by Sheldrake and morphogenetic fields, popularized into the 100th Monkey idea), that therefore, we are also responsible for the well-being of the planet, not only as viewed from the position of Kyoto Treaty proponents, but also from the point of view of our inner self??

   In other – massively – simplified words, if enough of us think gloom and doom, then is it not possible that this will have an effect on the globe? Likewise, meditation experiments carried out in Washington, DC. and other cities, demonstrated that crime figures could go down as a consequence. Hence, again – massively simplified – would it not hold true that if we all held ourselves in our highest state of well-being, and in order to get there, evidently, we all would work on ourselves, we just might have another kind of world – on many different levels – than we currently do??

   Just throwing thought out there…

   Cheers!

   Gabriella Kortsch in Marbella, Spain

3. Pessimist on July 2nd, 2007 2:41 pm

   “In other – massively – simplified words, if enough of us think gloom and doom, then is it not possible that this will have an effect on the globe?”

   Um, no, that’s not possible.

4. Gabriella Kortsch, Ph.D. on July 2nd, 2007 2:47 pm

   Not possible?

   Isn’t that a limiting point of view? Have you looked at recent research in quantum physics? The effect of thought on DNA in > research?

   Cheers!

5. Gabriella Kortsch, Ph.D. on July 2nd, 2007 2:48 pm

   sorry, above comment is missing the qualifier “empirical” before research.

6. nullifidian on July 3rd, 2007 7:31 pm

   There seem to be a lot of “what if”s there, implied if not explicit.

7. Gabriella Kortsch, Ph.D. on July 3rd, 2007 7:46 pm

   Where are the “what if’s” in quantum physics?

   Cheers!

   Gabriella

8. nullifidian on July 3rd, 2007 8:23 pm

   I was talking about the “what if”s in your claims.

   But what about looking at it from this point of view: if we are indeed all responsible for our lives, hence for what we do, what we think, and – also – for what we feel, then is it not possible that quantum theory’s concept of inter-relatedness, i.e., we are all one if we go back down to the most sub-atomic particles (already fore-shadowed by Sheldrake and morphogenetic fields, popularized into the 100th Monkey idea), that therefore, we are also responsible for the well-being of the planet, not only as viewed from the position of Kyoto Treaty proponents, but also from the point of view of our inner self??

   In other – massively – simplified words, if enough of us think gloom and doom, then is it not possible that this will have an effect on the globe? Likewise, meditation experiments carried out in Washington, DC. and other cities, demonstrated that crime figures could go down as a consequence. Hence, again – massively simplified – would it not hold true that if we all held ourselves in our highest state of well-being, and in order to get there, evidently, we all would work on ourselves, we just might have another kind of world – on many different levels – than we currently do??

   Also known as weasel words.

   Sure, if you can provide firm and credible evidence (perhaps with double blinds and controls) to back up your claim, go for it. I’m sure that there are research grants aplenty available for this field. At the moment, it looks like pure mumbo jumbo.

9. Gabriella Kortsch, Ph.D. on July 3rd, 2007 8:46 pm

   Well, call quantum physics “mumbo-jumbo” if you wish. Kind of like calling Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the solar system the ravings of an heretic…

   Cheers!

   Gabriella

10. nullifidian on July 3rd, 2007 9:26 pm

    I’m not talking about QM, and I have deliberately, up to this point, not mentioned it. I was referring, as I mentioned previously, only and exclusively to your claims.

    My point remains: provide evidence to back up your claims. If you don’t, I’ll just have to confine further replies to the great Akismet bucket in the sky.

    One further point: you don’t have any idea of my background, experience or education, so please don’t insult me and demean yourself by attempting to call into question what you presume to think what I may or may not know about any subject, including QM or celestial mechanics.

11. Gabriella Kortsch, Ph.D. on July 3rd, 2007 9:41 pm

    I’m afraid I made no claims…simply brought the topic of quantum physics to the table since my initial post. Nor was there the slightest intent to do anything other than have what I hoped to be an interesting exchange with what I hoped to be an interesting person on what I hoped to be an interesting blog.

    Sorry you misread me.

    I guess that ends this one for me.

    Cheers!

    Gabriella

12. T O Fife on July 4th, 2007 5:15 am

    “They’re starting to sound like their wingnut cousins across the water.” I am torn . . . should I be dismayed that you too now have to endure this tripe, or do I derive odd pleasure knowing that others are beginning to share in my suffering?

13. nullifidian on July 4th, 2007 1:29 pm

    Hi T O,

    I’d like to think that it’s the former: that’s what we hope for you! :-)

14. nullifidian on July 4th, 2007 1:43 pm

    Gabriella,

    If that was indeed your premise, then I can only accept it at face value. From reading some of your own output, it seems obvious that this is a subject of interest to you, although I do find some of your angles and framing quite mind-bending.

    Nevertheless, you presumed too much when you came here to discuss a topic that was neither mentioned in my original post, nor is something that I have at any time expressed any particular interest in. To me, your original comment was what I might consider blog spam.

    If I ever do develop an interest in that particular line of enquiry, our paths may again cross. Until then, I will concern myself only with things that interest me: I have no desire to engage with you, nor anyone else, on the topic you mention.

15. AV on July 4th, 2007 4:38 pm

    But what about looking at it from this point of view: if we are indeed all responsible for our lives, hence for what we do, what we think, and – also – for what we feel, then is it not possible that quantum theory’s concept of inter-relatedness, i.e., we are all one if we go back down to the most sub-atomic particles (already fore-shadowed by Sheldrake and morphogenetic fields, popularized into the 100th Monkey idea), that therefore, we are also responsible for the well-being of the planet, not only as viewed from the position of Kyoto Treaty proponents, but also from the point of view of our inner self??

    Ladies and gentlemen, she’s shilling for “The Secret.”

16. nullifidian on July 4th, 2007 4:43 pm

    AV dude, I was trying to be polite. ;-)

17. TW on July 7th, 2007 11:15 pm

    Blimey a post about the wingnutter from the Good Old CofE and you land yourself a shill. Amazing :-)

    I saw some news footage of the the Anglicans trying to defend what the Nutter of Carlisle said, it just added more woo on to the original nonsense – going on about “our” god-inspired duty to look after the planet etc.

    Apparently they were worried that people who had lost family members or belongings in the floods would be offended by the implication that god had punished them for being miscreants. What they basically ended up saying was the Christian God is an arbitrarily vengeful psychopath…

    As for the semi-tame woo-spreader Gabriella, she shows some brilliant debating style. I especially like the way she brings QM in (as if it supports he claims) then when you rebutt her original new-age woo, she tries to deflect it to a criticism of QM. Can she not read? (I really did love the way she felt the need to add “PhD” to the subsequent posts…)

    Oh, how I missed the Internet while I was away :-)

18. nullifidian on July 8th, 2007 12:04 am

    Welcome back TW. We missed you. :)