Musings on ME
Hi Stephen,
I've just made a couple of comments on the thread but I did want to thank you for all the time and effort you've put into this thread exploring the Matrix Energetics modality. I'm also grateful that you took the time to explain in clear terms the mysteries of ME to newbies like myself. My only exposure is through the threads (this one and the threads on the ME site), the Youtube videos, the radio interviews, and RB's book (which leaves me with a lot of questions).
I'm going to the ME seminar in Rhinebeck (NY) this week-end with a combination of excitement and skepticism. Excitement because I really do believe, in the wonders of Bartlett's vision. I find very attractive Rupert Sheldrake's vision of morphogenic fields and do feel there is a connection between the vision set forth by various quantum theories and all the recent and not so recent modalities that intersect with this multi-dimensional perspective of how human beings fit into this (and perhaps other) universe(s).
I also practiced martial arts (shintaido) for a few years and that practice made me realize we are a lot more than a lump of molecule, and that our consciousness goes beyond the mass of neurons we call our brain.
At the same time, I am reluctant to embrace what I sometimes see as flimsy self-help feel-good New Agey flavor-of-the-month philosophies. I'm originally from France so it may just be my contrarian streak talking. What's funny is that my senior philosophy thesis in college was on a French philosopher Georges Batailles who spoke about the inadequacies of language to describe mystical experiences. By the same token, it is difficult to use our linear language to describe what ME is. What also intrigues me is that in many ways (and this is something that Bartlett himself admits), there are very few guidelines/rules/guide posts in this journey. Many of the 'techniques' (tricks/reference points) are completely arbitrary.
The message seems to be: whatever works for you. Two-points, three-points, physical/emotional/spacial/mental, it's as all that counts is the attitude, a mix of mental (intention) with an emotional state. I also get the feeling in order to make this work, you have to strike the right balance between sending/setting an intention and letting-go. I'm not too clear on that.
I'll report back next week.
Lance
Hi Stephen,
I've just made a couple of comments on the thread but I did want to thank you for all the time and effort you've put into this thread exploring the Matrix Energetics modality. I'm also grateful that you took the time to explain in clear terms the mysteries of ME to newbies like myself. My only exposure is through the threads (this one and the threads on the ME site), the Youtube videos, the radio interviews, and RB's book (which leaves me with a lot of questions).
I'm going to the ME seminar in Rhinebeck (NY) this week-end with a combination of excitement and skepticism. Excitement because I really do believe, in the wonders of Bartlett's vision. I find very attractive Rupert Sheldrake's vision of morphogenic fields and do feel there is a connection between the vision set forth by various quantum theories and all the recent and not so recent modalities that intersect with this multi-dimensional perspective of how human beings fit into this (and perhaps other) universe(s).
I also practiced martial arts (shintaido) for a few years and that practice made me realize we are a lot more than a lump of molecule, and that our consciousness goes beyond the mass of neurons we call our brain.
At the same time, I am reluctant to embrace what I sometimes see as flimsy self-help feel-good New Agey flavor-of-the-month philosophies. I'm originally from France so it may just be my contrarian streak talking. What's funny is that my senior philosophy thesis in college was on a French philosopher Georges Batailles who spoke about the inadequacies of language to describe mystical experiences. By the same token, it is difficult to use our linear language to describe what ME is. What also intrigues me is that in many ways (and this is something that Bartlett himself admits), there are very few guidelines/rules/guide posts in this journey. Many of the 'techniques' (tricks/reference points) are completely arbitrary.
The message seems to be: whatever works for you. Two-points, three-points, physical/emotional/spacial/mental, it's as all that counts is the attitude, a mix of mental (intention) with an emotional state. I also get the feeling in order to make this work, you have to strike the right balance between sending/setting an intention and letting-go. I'm not too clear on that.
I'll report back next week.
Lance
Comment