Melatonin... script???

[Rev]

LOL

I'm not writing off naturopathy in its entirety, far from it

Me neither. Ive even considered doing it myself - which is especially why the halfwits weve both met PISS ME OFF SO VERY BLOODY MUCH!

not only would i be probably 'taught' by these peoplebut id have their protoges as classmates

i have as amhy bitches about the medical establishment who are also under trained and overopinionated and dont really give a shit.

as for TCM? well i believe in the allopathic model for alot of things - like inflammation, infection etc

but i also believe in health as a kind of balance. so it appeals.

but to know what proportion of TCM practitioners are quacks - ??? prob quite a few

I like people who stock to what they are good ant and arent afraid to say i dont know

cos in reality thats the case.

my prime example. what should people eat? just give me a straight scientific answer

yet little work is done on such a major issue - even though we have perfect rations for livestock and racehorses down pat

nobody knows and its a travesty

a 50 year old man with an advanced melanoma being advised to not have the cancer excised and instead take bush flower essences and homeopathic whatever....that's reprehensible.

Its also illegal. You cant treat somebody for cancer unless qualified to do so

[folias]

Edward Bach (who basically "invented" flower essences), said that he didn't believe in empirical evidence suggesting that flower essences "worked", as he said it was a self evident practice with results that were also evident.

However, the flower essence society (based in California, U.S.A.) have been doing many "empirical" studies of flower essences... using EEG and over relatively primitive devices that measures people's responses and reactions.

http://www.flowersociety.org/scientific.htm

also

http://www.ijhc.org/FreeJournal/Journal/06...es/Cram-I-1.asp

The Bush Flower essences, made by Australian Ian White, are generally considered to be the most powerful range in the world today, generally being considered more "modern" than Bach's essences.

Although some would say they have sold out and compromised the essences in the last few years and I would have to concur with that!

Ian White makes some "scientific" claims with some of his esssences, he says that Sydney doctors use certain essences to treat female infertility and diabetes with very high success rates.

there is an interview with him here:

http://www.healingquest.tv/BushMedicineTrans.html

“We have a number of hospitals working with the essences, whether it’s the Woman Essence for women going into labor or gynecological problems. For example, it’s used as an alternative to hormone replacement therapy in hospitals in Brazil and Switzerland."

I've done the level I bush flower essence course many years ago, and I felt the teacher was really reductionistic! Always referencing essences to the various aspects of the endocrine system, and not addressing much else!

I also remember them saying that the flower essence "slender rice flower" (as I recall) was being used in Brazilian hospitals after surgery, which caused the surgeons knife cuts to heal in half the time.

(ah, but those Brazilians are so kooky that heaps of them run their cars on 100% ethanol! )

One problem, according to flower essence makers is in the U.S., you are not even allowed by the FDA to say that flower essences have any effect on the physical body!

However, flower essences are deemed by vibrational healers to be a form of vibrational healing which is very "refined", and is mostly used to treat mental, emotional and psychic levels of being, which are deemed to be the causative factors in creating illness...

So, some people like myself, make and take essences because they are the most effective supplements that one can find! They are very fast and go very deep in their action! I only wish they were more available in this country! (and they're cheap too... you can buy a flower essence bottle that lasts up to a month for $10-15)

Whenever I take something, whether it be herbs, a supplement or a pharmaceutical for the first time, I really feel it going through my system for the first time, then the second and third ingestion is not felt so clearly...

When I take flower essences for the first time I often literally "trip" on the movement of energy it gives me which expands awareness! People have accused me of putting LSD in their flower essences! Any good flower essence will often give you a literal zing and high powered flash that will last for many hours...

The first time, I took the bush flower essence "bluebell" 8 years ago, the actual movment of energy, profound stirring in my heart was strong enough that I called a girl I hadn't been in contact with for some time, who at that time, was my primary experience of romantic love!

Anyone care for a HCAB? (Heart Chakra Air Bag)

Julian.

p.s.

also Richard Gerber's book "Vibrational Medicine" is the classic text which explains the "theory" behind vibrational medicine such as homeopathy and flower essences.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/187918158...5Fencoding=UTF8

Edited March 23, 2006 by folias

[Rev]

At the Core of the medical dilemma, i think, is the commodification of it.

Medicine is something of an art, and also a science.

but at somepoint ibecause of the way our society runs on individual wealth and user pays

it got turned into something to be sold

on a local level that might work for a time but in our society weve gotten to a point where the its all haemorraging

everybody takes their hefty cut and no-one is satisfied with less. understandably as there seems no surity in society at large anymore. Nothing is commonwealth and just to keep up with all the double billing by governmnets and corporations, the speculators and inflation, and to get anywhere requires an amount of cash that is spiralling out of reach. so people dont do something for nothing cos time is $ - they say

I was recenty in a hospital and was shocked by the scene. 3 nurses on duty and for a good hours and ahalf all we heerad were them talking and laughing at the front desk. when we needed something they showed us where to get it - even though the rules at the station said staff only, and amazingly the melas dont get brought to the room, the inpatient has to go get it from the common room where its left unguarded, and then take the tray back. all while the nurses are sitting.

It pissed me off cos last job i had i got $14

an hour for fucking hard yakka, and i know these nurses are on at least $30 an hour

for which youd expect at least a show of effort

but renumeration has little effect of job satisfaction. you get a job at x per hour and its a buzz if its good. but so long as needs r met a few weeks down the line its not often the reason you are happy or not about the job... paying somebody more than they are worth is bad for morale cos they become prima donnas, using circular logic that they get paid x so they must be worth it. half in jest i mused that no-one getting payed over 20 dollars an hour actually works...

even for me. im a few cents over and suddenly i find my job is easier with all my assistants actually doing the nitty gritty for half that - or nothing! ive certainly worked thrice as hard for half as much

so the mainstream seems to be choking on a hairball of overpaid innefficient staff with no love left for the job, managed by tightarse accountants shaving off the pleasant to meet the obligatory - like food standards or appoiontment times.

and at the coalface are physicians there because like law or engineering they had the scores and its a high social status proffession - which many times makes them somewhat aloof and elitist. those that actually give a shit and are good get swamped. those that arent good? well ive always still had to pay for misdiagnosis- double billed again - medicare dollars plus plus their extra fees and thats if u need no medicine

so thats the medical establishmnet IME as it stand warts and all bleeding itself and us dry

between them and the alternatives i find it incredulous we are barging into a period of high global culture when the most fundamenal art of maintaining our health is in shambles.

if i were E.T. id be horrified a sentient race would allow that to occur

so my advice is stay healthy

get to know a pharmacist, a herbalist and a masseur/physio and most your troubles can be alleviated

Edited March 23, 2006 by Rev

[wandjina]

I checked out the links Julian...still not sold.

What i can say with certainty is that flower essences have not worked for me, even when i used them many years ago, prior to developing my skepticism towards them. In fact, my reasons for doubting their efficacy are largely based on my personal experience of their not working.

I have been given several preparations over the years, the major one being 'rescue remedy'.

By and large, flower essences have come into my possession via well-meaning friends when i have been going through a crisis, and I can say from experience, flower essences have not been effective for me, nor for many of my friends who for some reason, even in the face of zero improvement, continue to take them. And they aint cheap.

One of the main things I object to is the gross commercialisation of alternative and complementary medicine...I agree with Rev and Tort...these 'medicines' should be priced according to the cost of production.

I strongly object to the ostensibly altruistic, but in actuality profit based, marketing of ridiculously overpriced 'vibrational' (i.e. ethanol based) products to desperate and/or credulous people.

Edited March 24, 2006 by wandjina

[MrBumpy]

"also Richard Gerber's book "Vibrational Medicine" is the classic text which explains the "theory" behind vibrational medicine such as homeopathy and flower essences. "

If anyone is interested in reading Gerber's book, I have a copy I can give you. Had to buy it as a textbook when I was studying naturopathy at ACNM... can't say it was a wise investment.

" I strongly object to the ostensibly altruistic, but in actuality profit based, marketing of ridiculously overpriced 'vibrational' (i.e. ethanol based) products to desperate and/or credulous people. "

ethanol based? I thought homeopathy and flower essences were water based... since the theory is that the water retains the vibrational energy... if you are into that sort of thing.

-bumpy

[folias]

Wandjina,

I'm not really trying to "sell" anyone the idea that flower essences work, only to show that some research has been done and in what way they are typically used, and to explain the field a bit.

I don't generally believe in flower essences as remedial medicine... and are probably best used in a kind of supplemental, "oh, I think could do with the influence of that flower, its intelligence and influence at this time." And THAT, can work as a kind of preventative medicine, if one is choosing to face patterns and issues within one's own system... I have met other flower essence makers who are often quite confronted by the flower essences that they themelves make...and I have found this to be the case as well.

The basic premise of flower essences, is that you are transferring the energy imprint of the flower via a conductor (water) and that is stored in alcohol (brandy usually!). The spirit of a plant is a sentient being... the flower is its creative expression which allows access to the plants intelligence. The overall sentient being of the flower is called the deva of the flower.

Some people contact the Salvia deva by smoking the leaves of the plant! Contact with the ayahuasca being is also very common to people involved in that field ... BUT, we live in a culture that doesn't officially recognise the non-physical force of sentience, even in ourselves in the form of emotions and feelings, in any simple and obvious way... and doesn't really recognise the "non-physical" sentience of plants... people who are gardners and work with plants closely will often recognise that sentience in different ways!

One time I gave this flower essence of 'wandering jew' I had made to a woman friend of mine who couldn't walk that day due to an illness she had, she sat down in the garden and looked at the flower, who came to her psychically and the flower healed her, or she healed herself...whatever happened, she was able to walk that day when she wasn't able to that day.

I strongly object to the ostensibly altruistic, but in actuality profit based, marketing of ridiculously overpriced 'vibrational' (i.e. ethanol based) products to desperate and/or credulous people.

I'd say another thing, unfortunately, there are very few good commercial flower essences out there! I don't know... I think $10-15 is relatively inexpensive!

In Australia at least, many people may see naturopaths and the naturopaths may charge for a flower essence as well as the consulting fee... and may be limited to the Australian Bush flower essences and may not even be well versed in how to use them.

I would say the best way is generally to bypass the head and use a pendulum and the practioners I know use flower essences in this way. Many practitioners will prescribe herbs with flower essences... in my opinion and whole natural medecine field is often very compromised, restricted and often dogmatic!

But that doesn't mean I don't believe in the power of herbs and plants to heal... and that there are people out there who are very skilled in this field. I'm sure there are relative "quaks" in the field...

BUT, I would prefer to be encouraging to the overall good egg parts of the natural medicine fraternity... rather than dismiss the whole field because of cetain tendacies of thought within it! Because allopathy in this day and age, seems very moncolur, inhumane and often very much motivated by big pharma profit motives... use of these pharmaceutical products OFTEN has cause for much harm... whereas, natural medicine, including vibrational medicine is likely to effectively be "harmless quakery" in comparison.

Again, like I said, I don't consider flower essences terribly useful as a remedial medicine, and as long as people seek only seek help from nature when problems or illness arise, they will remain bound and much more limited than they need to be!

The best flower essences I have had are one's I have had made myself or that others have made for the love of it...

And also, there are some reasons that vibrational medicine may not work for some people... and there are even essences that help them to really kick in.

I take all kinds of supplements and things of that nature... flower essences I consider the creme de le creme of anything of this sort! However, I would agree with you that the present system or distribution and commercialisation is preventing a right usage of these most very powerful medicines.

In your experience, they don't work, fine, but in my experience, often the finest healers and often the most spot on human beings are people who are into flower essences... and I would say the same with psychedelics too!

Its like this entity thing... I have said a few times, aftter the 678th time you are visited by a being from another dimension or you travel to their dimension you stop disbelieving... there is no option anymore. It is what it is and what it says it is. That is the simplest and obvious and most direct explanation.

After experiencing and working with flower essenes for a long time and seeing many facets of how they work for oneself and other people, and how that this workingness is way beyond that of any workingness of any known supplement or plant form or pharmaceutical... there is no doubt of it in my mind and there are thousands of people around the world who have come to the same concusion and use flower essences in their lives. So that's the field... and there are some very good books on the subject.

(Steve Johnson's "The Essence of Healing" being one of my favourites)

Flower essences are considered by those who work with vibrational medicine, to be the most powerful medicines as they are deemd to be able to access deep inside the psyche and psychic nature of human consioucnsess.

Its sad that flower essences are not used by psychiatrists to treat the mind, because that is their most powerful application. Psychiatrists work with very blunt and general tools, which really don't do the job of real healing and integration, empowering human intelligence and its living application.

Rather, pharmaceutical medicine is often inhibitive and obstructive... I see flower essences and any vibrational medicine as being the medicine of the future and I'd say we are only just beginning to be evolved enough to begin to learn to adequately use them.

Julian.

Edited March 25, 2006 by folias

[Darklight]

back to melatonin: i asked my doc and he said he couldn't write me a script for melatonin...

I have had problems with my GP in the past saying he couldn't prescribe l-tryptophan or melatonin cos it wasn't listed on his software or in the MIMs.

On his software this year melatonin was only listed as 6X on the dropdown list. He could however manually write me a script for 3mg x 60, but he did need confirmation of both the amount and number of tablets fr that manufacturer so the script would make it through customs

GPs can prescribe for compounds that aren't listed in the MIM's- I'm just not sure what the limitations are. L-tryptophan wasn't listed in the MIM's, but he was still legally able to prescribe it.

Some doctors are lazy bastards who don't like using their pens to write prescriptions, but even that's still legal too

[Thelema]

AS I understand it, most doctors will not write a prescription for substances not listed in MIMS or on the register because if something goes wrong then their public liability insurance does not cover being sued etc. over the prescription of such a substance.

So with centrophenoxine, hydergine, DHEA, melatonin, modafinil the doctor takes such a risk. This issue was highlighted recently when a woman wanted to import RU-486 as an anti-tumor drug (an experimental use) but was unable to import it because it was also listed s4(?) on the TGA schedules. HOWEVER, it being listed as s4(?) does not mean it is available for supply within australia, so in effect there is this certain category of substances that are effectively unavailable for experimental (or any) use yet still not illegal.

In effect, OK to use it if you can get a prescription, but there's little to no chance of a legalistically-clued up doctor actually giving you one.

There is a similar black hole for experimental USES of drugs already listed s4. (As opposed to experimental COMPOUNDS not listed). For example, using deprenyl or vasopressin for parkinsons or ahlzeimers. The law relating to experimental medicines needs to be changed in this regard, to also include experimental USE of previously prescribed substances, and exempt them from prescription in such cases.

Of course, I may be wrong about my presumption that such prescriptions are not covered by the public liability insurance of doctors. I also hope I am wrong in my assessment of the numbers of doctors willing to freelance their scripts. But I may not be.

[wandjina]

The spirit of a plant is a sentient being... the flower is its creative expression which allows access to the plants intelligence. The overall sentient being of the flower is called the deva of the flower.

I do not disagree with the first point, however, if I am understanding you correctly, I would argue that the assumption that one can directly 'read' what a plant is 'saying' from its flower is an anthropocentric one.

The doctrine of signatures, that the appearance/features of a plant is a kind of visual cue for its 'intended' application, presumes that plants deliberately present themselves (or that God has designed them to do such, which was Paracelsus' and co understanding) in a way that signifies to humans how they may be used, and what their properties are. For instance, if its red...good for the blood, yellow...good for the liver, and other attributes that can be linked to humoral principles found in TCM and older European medical systems.

Myself, i think that plants do provide cues that indicate to us whats 'going on' below surface appearances, and I also perceive plants as being sentient (although in a qualitatively different way than we are)...but plants have been around alot longer than Homo sapiens, some alot longer than primates or mammals...so to assume their floral language is intended primarily for us is arrogant. More likely it is intended for potential pollinators and other interactions and communication we are not generally privy to.

To me it is just plain silly that the properties of angle sword (Lobelia gibbosa), are apparently signified by the flowers' resemblance to

'...a monk in purple robes accentuated by the yellow stamens at the third eye.'

http://www.ausflowers.com.au/shop/scditem....rodid=2&catid=1

What a hoot...the creme de la creme of anthropocentrism!

In your experience, they don't work, fine, but in my experience, often the finest healers and often the most spot on human beings are people who are into flower essences... and I would say the same with psychedelics too!

Interesting, because in my experience the opposite is true.

More, being into flower essences or psychedelics does not necessarily indicate that an individual or group is 'spot on'. For instance, homeopathy (conceptualising flower essences as a 'vibrational' medicine, and hence allied with homeopathy) recieved a great deal of official support in Germany under Hitler, and Charles Manson was 'into' psychedelics.

BUT, I would prefer to be encouraging to the overall good egg parts of the natural medicine fraternity... rather than dismiss the whole field because of cetain tendacies of thought within it! Because allopathy in this day and age, seems very moncolur, inhumane and often very much motivated by big pharma profit motives... use of these pharmaceutical products OFTEN has cause for much harm... whereas, natural medicine, including vibrational medicine is likely to effectively be "harmless quakery" in comparison.

I concede I was rather harsh in my assessment of many natural therapists/particular natural therapies, but I am in no way discounting the whole of natural medicine.

The implication that natural medicine, in its entirety, has been dismissed in this thread is unfair and incorrect. One does not necessarily dismiss all of natural or herbal medicne because one does dismiss flower essences. Nor has anyone advocated wholesale adherence to the allopathic paradigm...indeed, I would take it as a given, or perhaps take for granted, that the majority of forum members are deeply skeptical/critical of orthodox medicine...that blind faith in 'legitimate' medicine is not the norm here.

Painting opposing views as absolute, and implicitly associating them with broad 'reductionist' thought to bolster an ostensibly 'alternative' argument, is a misleading generalisation.

Its like this entity thing... I have said a few times, aftter the 678th time you are visited by a being from another dimension or you travel to their dimension you stop disbelieving... there is no option anymore. It is what it is and what it says it is. That is the simplest and obvious and most direct explanation.

There are other parts of the argument(s) raised here that I could critique, but as it seems there is a rhetorical backdoor to most of the points/views presented, I do not foresee this debate progressing towards any kind of synthesis of our competing ideas and beliefs.

Or, put another way, we believe what we beleive and know to be true...and perhaps the most fruitful approach would be to agree to disagree

the only thing I'll add is an old Talmudic saying:

"We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are."

[Thelema]

au contraire, the 678th time a baby sees a strange baby in the mirror, it comes to realize that the other baby is not what it seems on face value, but a reflection of itself. maybe further perspective shift will one day reveal to you that a very similar thing is true for "entities".

[MORG]

Wow, I haven't read this thread for a while but for those insomniac, homeopath, existentialist babies who want to read the energy imprint of a melatonin script in a mirror there's some bottles of 120x 3mg tabs going on Ebay.com.au at the mo for about $20 a pop.

[wandjina]

Wow, I haven't read this thread for a while but for those insomniac, homeopath, existentialist babies who want to read the energy imprint of a melatonin script in a mirror there's some bottles of 120x 3mg tabs going on Ebay.com.au at the mo for about $20 a pop.

[folias]

Thelema,

au contraire, the 678th time a baby sees a strange baby in the mirror, it comes to realize that the other baby is not what it seems on face value, but a reflection of itself. maybe further perspective shift will one day reveal to you that a very similar thing is true for "entities".

sure you could choose to see entities as ONLY reflections of oneself if you were deeply rooted into the narcissism of the ego as being that of the centre of all existence and life. (like that of a baby!)

Wandjina,

For those making flower essences the 'doctrine of signatures' is a key or beginning to understand what the flower is meaning or expressing, it is a bit like interpreting a work of art...

People who make flower essences contend that flowers are just not pretty things that look good (which is pretty trite, glib and ignorant view if you ask me!), but that actually their form, color, shape and qualities of form have a certain expressiveness that is radiated to its environment AS an energetic expression... (also, it involves studying the plant and how it grows too) now, some could say the reception or receiving of this expression/energy is what causes us to see a thing as "beautifiul"

Interestingly, low level DMT visions often look like very evolved flower structures, geometric colors and forms which express that outward "sexuality" and vibrancy and beauty that flowers do!

In that case, we can often recognise something deeper about ourselveselves, there is something captivating about the experience of observation, which can causes us to consider life more deeply... like any good art will do. And in this observation, whether it is a DMT vision or observing a flower, our souls are fed a source of sustanance that effects how we create our lives as art!

However, a lot of people I know don't worry about the doctrine of signatures and just telepathically communicate with the deva of the flower and the deva of the flower tells the person everything that is relevant and this is more aligned with my approach, although I do spend a lot of time studying the plant and flower in a kind of reductionistic way limiting myself to seeing how its physical life is carried out.

Ian White said he was guided to make essences, because he could see an image of the flower in his minds eye, and a latin name of the flower... and then he was guided where to go to make that essence.

so to assume their floral language is intended primarily for us is arrogant.

There is one school of thought within one particularly out there flower essence book that contends flowers were created by an early order human beings who lived 10's of thousands of years ago (the lemurians), in order to help them learn about human life, and develope their human form!

I can't see any way to prove or disprove this personally... but I do know that many plants and herbs are relevant to us and can help us, I don't see how it is too much of a logical jump that to assume that flowers and their essences can assist us, if herbs do.

Its like a certain kind of scientism dominated perspective that refuses to believe that ANY herbs can be there to help as it just seems to much to be of a coincidence that this is the case (because we supposedly live in a random, chaotic world or chance and darwinian accidiental mutation!)...

The "other" view of nature, is that as there is food that supplies our nutritional and dietrary requirements for us to grow and eat, that there are flowers and plants that can supply our soul and psyche with information which can help us growth, integrate and heal where necessary!

Knowing this, experiencing this, I have found a very empowering thing, bringing about a much deeper trust and relation to the natural world and how it all works!

then I am not separate from nature so much... and trying to compete against it, but becoming more feminine in how I am able to receive from nature.... and then it tends to give more!

More likely it is intended for potential pollinators and other interactions and communication we are not generally privy to.

Absolutly! But the whole point is we can be privvy to it if we spend enough time and effort studying the plant and flower...

Julian.

[faustus]

sure you could choose to see entities as ONLY reflections of oneself if you were deeply rooted into the narcissism of the ego as being that of the centre of all existence and life. (like that of a baby!)

then again, you could see it as one of several possibilities, none of which can be verified. as a consequence, the wiser option would be to reserve any judgement rather than assuming one is communicating with entities because it "finally" proves to you that there's something more after death. step back for one moment and ask yourself if it's that ridiculous that the most complex technology in the known universe can simulate an entity that's entirely fictional. it's a possibility. it's also possible that you're right.

this thread's got it all! all we need now is a sex scandal.

thanks for the heads up morg, will be buying those tabs off ebay.

[wandjina]

sure you could choose to see entities as ONLY reflections of oneself if you were deeply rooted into the narcissism of the ego as being that of the centre of all existence and life. (like that of a baby!)

Strange that you say that...as your take on reading/communicating with plants clearly places the human observer at the centre...as the exemplary interpreter and arbiter of what plants are 'really' saying.

People who make flower essences contend that flowers are just not pretty things that look good (which is pretty trite, glib and ignorant view if you ask me!),

Again there is the implicit characterisation of those opposing your views as advocating a position they do not, so that you may bolster your argument by portraying those that disagree as holding ridiculous or naively simplistic views...this in not very sporting!

but that actually their form, color, shape and qualities of form have a certain expressiveness that is radiated to its environment AS an energetic expression... (also, it involves studying the plant and how it grows too) now, some could say the reception or receiving of this expression/energy is what causes us to see a thing as "beautifiul"

I would say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

Interestingly, low level DMT visions often look like very evolved flower structures, geometric colors and forms which express that outward "sexuality" and vibrancy and beauty that flowers do!

no shit sherlock

Low level DMT visions also look like the patterns expressed in many marine and terrestrial invertebrates, also bacteria, and other microbes... these can be extraordinarily beautiful, but also pathological or highly toxic, such as the neurotoxins produced by some species of algae and diatoms associated with 'red tides'.

The calcareous 'skeletons' of diatoms are exquisite, not the best picture I've seen of them though:

(and in case you were wondering, yes, diatomaceous 'earth' is largely comprised of diatom 'skeletons').

In that case, we can often recognise something deeper about ourselveselves, there is something captivating about the experience of observation, which can causes us to consider life more deeply... like any good art will do. And in this observation, whether it is a DMT vision or observing a flower, our souls are fed a source of sustanance that effects how we create our lives as art!

Absolutely, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

However, a lot of people I know don't worry about the doctrine of signatures and just telepathically communicate with the deva of the flower and the deva of the flower tells the person everything that is relevant and this is more aligned with my approach, although I do spend a lot of time studying the plant and flower in a kind of reductionistic way limiting myself to seeing how its physical life is carried out.

hmm...this is where I disagree. Over the years I've known many people who share your beliefs, and interestingly, their supposed 'telepathic communication' with 'plant devas' (or whatever they may call them), often reveals very different results and opinions. That is, different people may 'read' different things off the same plant based on their own subjective experience, as opposed to identifying something distinct, discrete, or objectively definable about a particular plant.

But let me make clear, I am not discounting communication, psychic or otherwise, with plants and the 'veegetable' kingdom in general.

Ian White said he was guided to make essences, because he could see an image of the flower in his minds eye, and a latin name of the flower... and then he was guided where to go to make that essence.

actually, a close friend of mine (a botanist whos significant other is obsessed with flower essences), familiarised himself with Whites work, and found that White had misidentified several plants...so this practice of using latin names as a prelude to being 'guided' is patently ridiculous.

There is one school of thought within one particularly out there flower essence book that contends flowers were created by an early order human beings who lived 10's of thousands of years ago (the lemurians), in order to help them learn about human life, and develope their human form!

out there...too right, what a load of hooey...panspermia theory, or self-replicating 'robots'/probes, or the ancient insertion of genetic material into earthly genomes are IMO much better ideas with superior explanatory power...this new agey fluff belongs in the realm of science fiction or superstition, along with Ptolemaic astrology and 'reading' the entrails of birds.

I can't see any way to prove or disprove this personally... but I do know that many plants and herbs are relevant to us and can help us, I don't see how it is too much of a logical jump that to assume that flowers and their essences can assist us, if herbs do.

I would argue it is a big jump. The millenia old, tried and true, use of herbs (their leaves, roots, shoots and flowers etc) as medicine/food/sacrements etc etc is not in the same category as these much more recent ideas. Homeopathy and flower essences are modern...even if one traces their origins back to the middle ages or Renaissance, more, they grew out of, and are still flavoured by, monotheistic, Christian (ie. anthropocentric) philosophies and world views. Flower and flower essence are not equivilent.

Its like a certain kind of scientism dominated perspective that refuses to believe that ANY herbs can be there to help as it just seems to much to be of a coincidence that this is the case (because we supposedly live in a random, chaotic world or chance and darwinian accidiental mutation!)...

I understand what you're getting at, its an issue often tackled in debates concerning Creationism and 'intelligent design'....fundamentalist Christians love to fall back on 'its too much of a coincidence' style arguments.

Surely you've seen 'chaos patterns'...or are aware of 'chaos theory'?

I find your views here too simplistic and, again, anthropocentric.

to quote you again:

sure you could choose to see entities as ONLY reflections of oneself if you were deeply rooted into the narcissism of the ego as being that of the centre of all existence and life

so we are not the centre 'there'...but 'here' we are...where plants and other things in the world have been specifically designed for our use?

Many other animals take advantage of the psychoactive and medicinal properties of plants...perhaps if anything has been 'inserted' or 'implanted' into nature from 'outside'...it is intended for the consumption of whatever evolves enough to understand and effectively utilise it, however one may define the latter.

Over the next millions of years, this could foreseeably be a cephalopod, the most intelligent invertebrates (octopus and squids etc)....would highly evolved squids think to themselves that flowers were designed predominatly, or exclusively, for their use? Maybe. But that would be cephalopocentric.

The "other" view of nature, is that as there is food that supplies our nutritional and dietrary requirements for us to grow and eat, that there are flowers and plants that can supply our soul and psyche with information which can help us growth, integrate and heal where necessary!

I do not disagree...but from another angle it would seem you are paraphrasing Genesis.

Conversely, I do not see the need to characterise this view as the 'other'....I do not see it as necessarily conflicting with a 'scientific' view. Perhaps you are conflating 'scientism' with 'scientific'?

Knowing this, experiencing this, I have found a very empowering thing, bringing about a much deeper trust and relation to the natural world and how it all works!

well if that works for you, great

then I am not separate from nature so much... and trying to compete against it, but becoming more feminine in how I am able to receive from nature.... and then it tends to give more!

again, great...but there are many other ways to feel this way...as a part of nature and not separate from it, on the outside looking it.

However some of your rhetoric does paint humans as being somehow outside, or at the centre...as distinct...as the only, or most accomplished, translaters of what nature is really saying, as if personal biases, expectations and beliefs have no bearing on our perception of facts.

I am afraid that your views are more like orthodox science than you realise, in advocating the idea that one can simply observe 'the facts' , the unadulterated way things 'really are', unfettered by idiosyncratic subjectivity.

[Rev]

I personally give creedence to the doctrine of signatures

the problem i see is that the peopel using it are too small minded

Monks robes indeed!

ive said it before. if you get a tangent like that slap yourself as u are anthropomorphising the truth

the kind of DOS i am taling about goes like this...

I have moist infections..(no not really, well not always)...where to heal myself?

well a damp stale environments of course .. bingo Tea tree oils, hops and golden seal

I want life prolonging and immune enhancing medicine... where to look?

well at long living plants and animals... bingo Ginseng, polypore fungi

I want adaptogenics - look at harsh variable environments..Siberian ginseng, rhodiola, withania, Coca

i want wound healing herbs - look at plants with explosive growth.. Comfrey, Kudzu

appetite suppresants - succulent plants in barren landscapes or cloudforest/understorey plants.. hoodia and others like it, arid cacti, ephedra/ Coffee khat Tea Safrolicious plants (many in the cool dense forests)

and so on

the form and habit of plants does give clues as to what it might be useful for

sure you could choose to see entities as ONLY reflections of oneself if you were deeply rooted into the narcissism of the ego as being that of the centre of all existence and life. (like that of a baby!)

i agree wth that sentiment.

i see no concrete evidence that the human perspective of a single layer universe is reality and i feel that it is much more likley not to be true than to be true

For those making flower essences the 'doctrine of signatures' is a key or beginning to understand what the flower is meaning or expressing, it is a bit like interpreting a work of art...

im with you there too, mostly. Rather than the religious explanation that they are here for us i would rather say that al things on earth especially those concerened with matter are cut from the same mould (LOL silly pun)

and there are common lines running through us all that reveal the deeper workings of the cosmos

if we can find those strings and follow them back they can lead us to common ground

Interestingly, low level DMT visions often look like very evolved flower structures, geometric colors and forms which express that outward "sexuality" and vibrancy and beauty that flowers do!

true and notes as above. but i dont think flowers are overly special. They are beautiful in complexity but they are still designed to do a job.

see my pics n comments on flower types here - http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...725&hl=hawkmoth

I think we need to look at the whole plant to know its nature. Like we must know the whole mycleial network and not just the mushroom or the whole animal and, emphasis extended, not just its genitals.However, a lot of people I know don't worry about the doctrine of signatures and just telepathically communicate with the deva of the flower and the deva of the flower tells the person everything that is relevant and this is more aligned with my approach, although I do spend a lot of time studying the plant and flower in a kind of reductionistic way limiting myself to seeing how its physical life is carried out.

That you do that is why i like talking with you julian. Which is more than i can say of the former which i have nothing to talk about with seeing as how they are just plain gifted and can provide no sequence of logic.

Ive not been without my own Flower transformations

with lilly insectoid entities howing how the plants like blood sacrifice, and use the nectar to stupefy insects, often lethally

or San pedro flowers being analogous to the flowering of the soul during its nocturnal flight with san pedro

the trip in stages and duration being roughly equal to the flowers lifespan.

Flowers do talk. in my experience this is true. But to what degree and can the essence be captured? i think not, unless in a chemical form as with roses, lotus or lillies, or trichocereus or as in a recent post the capture of the lethality of sarracenia, a crude herabl drug containing coniine.

as usuall i find myself right between all of you disagreeing with all of you ad yet agreeing with all of you

just where i prefer to be

great thread peoples

[wandjina]

I personally give creedence to the doctrine of signatures

the problem i see is that the peopel using it are too small minded

Monks robes indeed!

exactly what I meant...only you fit it succintly into a sentence

You DOS makes alot of sense, I lik-ee

i see no concrete evidence that the human perspective of a single layer universe is reality and i feel that it is much more likley not to be true than to be true

i think that maybe thelemas baby analogy has been misinterpreted. 'Universe as self' need not be an egotistical notion...that the 'truth' may be that there is no separation would seem to underlie the ideas of entities as unrecognised aspects of self, just as we may be unrecognised aspects of 'alien' selves

I'm not necessarily discounting the existence of entities, because no matter what one may 'think' about them, and whether or not they exist autonomously, there are occassions in which their existence seems self-evident and undeniable.

But then some very experienced people don't see entities, and I don't think its because they're closed or not open to 'contact'. That explanation is just too simple.

Truth be told, I dont know what the truth is...and like what the great biologist JBS Haldane is credited with having said:

"the truth is likely not only to be stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.'

and there are common lines running through us all that reveal the deeper workings of the cosmos

if we can find those strings and follow them back they can lead us to common ground

I couldn't agree more...from DNA to the very elements (atoms and infinitely smaller) of which we are composed...it is true that we, and everything on the planet, is made of stars.

There are 'patterns', cycles etc etc...which we can locate and interpret...and I think the ramifiications of the latter (interpretation/understanding), is expressed well by Terrence McKenna when he noted:

'why is it that the further in you go, the bigger it gets?'

...which is to say, one can not /does not finally figure it all out like a EUREKA moment (which is not to say one may have numerous eureka moments, but not necessarily 'be all and end all' eurekas)..., you don't get to the end of the universe and like some messianic psyconaut bring back 'the answer' for the rest of humanity....i'd argue that the experiential possibilities are literally endless...its as big, and as beautiful, and as weird as you can perceive it to be.

The limits are not external, it is all up to how you work with it, how much you can let go, open up, participate etc etc.

I think we need to look at the whole plant to know its nature. Like we must know the whole mycleial network and not just the mushroom or the whole animal and, emphasis extended, not just its genitals.

...some animals are so superficial a plant should be respected for its mind, not just its body

Edited March 31, 2006 by wandjina

[indigo264nm]

My god this turned into a very interesting thread indeed.

Back to the point though... anybody gotten a script for this yet???

I'm seeing my developmental pediatrician on monday and hopefully he'll be able to help me out with one, and therefore might be able to help a couple of friends out as well .

My psych said he would gladly write me a script but it's not in his MIMS so he doesn't know what to write?! He told me if I managed to get my hands on a bottle I should bring it to him and he'll be able to write them for me whenever (and hopefully to lots of other patients of his who will benefit from it).

[Tripitaka]

I feel that the exo neuro networking of plant structures is well beyond the cognitive abilities of our Mammalian In vivo capabilities and the limitations of our biology. Our perceptions are inherently and dare I say entirely limited by our filtering capabilities and by the sensory niavity that we as a species collectively possess.

A large part of the "Rawness" of nature is percieved when plant compounds are ingested on any level and science has difficulty getting a handle on what is happening here other then naming compounds and discussing their physiacl characteristics or neuro pathways upon which they act! I don't blame science for this but it does ring true that the sciences are limited by the units of measurement that it applies to gauge any functional understanding of anything. Not to say I dont see value in these styles of discussion as it is all we have at this point in time. The reductionist scientific idea is that if it cant be measured than its irrelevance is determinable or to put it another way if it cant be measured its relevance is indeterminable!

Maybe we need recalibrate our units of measurement or devise our machinations to this end.

This I feel is where the vegatal world has the advantage in perception. A raw immeadate experience of the expression of life in a non reductionst expansive view of entirety.

What we see optically reminds me of a visual haiku, a reduced version of an idea. A simple understated expression of something larger. I like the idea of positive reductionism in order to understand, but I also recognise that positive expansionism is a counterpoint to the views our species is generally engaged in and I quite like the position of watching things unfold to reveal deeper levels.

It seems that the only thing that has given me pain in this life is my own understanding of it.

[folias]

wandjina wrote:

as your take on reading/communicating with plants clearly places the human observer at the centre...as the exemplary interpreter and arbiter of what plants are 'really' saying.

Sure, human beings can observe and interpret the communications of plants and how they are relevent to themselves!

as to your accusations of being "anthropomorphickal", I think there are facets and patterns of universal gaian intelligence that are accesible as potential by all beings...

Again there is the implicit characterisation of those opposing your views as advocating a position they do not, so that you may bolster your argument by portraying those that disagree as holding ridiculous or naively simplistic views...this in not very sporting!

Actually, this view that flowers are just pretty things, came from some English writer of scientific biology books, someone like Dawkins... can't remember the reference sorry!

Over the years I've known many people who share your beliefs, and interestingly, their supposed 'telepathic communication' with 'plant devas' (or whatever they may call them), often reveals very different results and opinions. That is, different people may 'read' different things off the same plant based on their own subjective experience, as opposed to identifying something distinct, discrete, or objectively definable about a particular plant.

the flower essence society in california have an interesting way of testing research essences, they do all the work they do to ascertain and understand the plant/flower, put it in a filing cabinent, then give the essences to their practioners all over the world (the FES is a relatively large network!) and the practitioners use the essences with clients and report back how they feel this essence is working... over years and years, another file is built on each research essence based on this research, only when it is stark or obvious, there is coherent thread of how this flower essence is working on people, of many case histories, is it released to the general public as being of a certain quality or having a certain clear effaciousness.

Many flower essence companies have rather rigorous testing procedures that are similar and take years and years before a community of people accept a total picture of what a particular flower essence is and does for human does.

actually, a close friend of mine (a botanist whos significant other is obsessed with flower essences), familiarised himself with Whites work, and found that White had misidentified several plants...so this practice of using latin names as a prelude to being 'guided' is patently ridiculous.

Who ever said it was an infallible method!

;-)

I found it interesting that Ian White admitted that this was his experience, because it would be easier and more orthodox, and he would have more potential to be taken seriously by more people if he did not say this!

well, it would be interesting to see what Ian White had to say in response to this anyway...

out there...too right, what a load of hooey...panspermia theory, or self-replicating 'robots'/probes, or the ancient insertion of genetic material into earthly genomes are IMO much better ideas with superior explanatory power...this new agey fluff belongs in the realm of science fiction or superstition, along with Ptolemaic astrology and 'reading' the entrails of birds.

I tend to feel that human civilisations existed more than 8,000 years ago... there is quite a bit of archaelogical material that is found quite regularly... which certainly, when put together, paints something of a picture of there being civilisations previous to ours.

http://www.lauralee.com/japan.htm

http://www.lauralee.com/japan/japan2.htm

So I really don't know... I like to keep an open mind (rather than a closed mind ;-) about such things... the history of the past as we know it may be very limited.

I have studied quite a bit of the work of people who have theorised/channeled/archaeologised regarding this issue... lets say I find it all more plausable that L. Ron Hubbard's version of the history of the earth ;-)

(which stands out from the crowd of other theorists in that it doesn't correlate at all with other views/theories/channeled material!)

http://www.crystalinks.com/lemuria.html

the 'truth' may be that there is no separation would seem to underlie the

ideas of entities as unrecognised aspects of self, just as we may be unrecognised aspects of 'alien' selves

I see there are different levels of entities too... some are just pesky little cartoonish critters which look computer generated (i.e. primitive!) ... some ARE forms of one's psyche and then do reveal themselves as such...

Some are extraordinarily complex and say clearly and plainly "we are one"... others appear extraordinary alien and either come to play or perform operations or "checkups"... this is really, really common with people who use tryptamines and it happens to me very often!

I am afraid that your views are more like orthodox science than you realise, in advocating the idea that one can simply observe 'the facts' , the unadulterated way things 'really are', unfettered by idiosyncratic subjectivity.

good point!

rev wrote:

Flowers do talk. in my experience this is true. But to what degree and can the essence be captured? i think not, unless in a chemical form as with roses, lotus or lillies, or trichocereus or as in a recent post the capture of the lethality of sarracenia, a crude herabl drug containing coniine.

Flower essence makers say the essence can be captured and given in the form of water and (usually) brandy as a preserver... and that flowers themselves as forms of intelligence are aware of this process, and that there are many different nature spirits who support and assist in the process of making an essence... in my experience, it seems like something of an archetypal process occuring here.

I have found it is the flowers come to you, and tell you they want to made into an essence, rather than us actually choosing to make an essence... other flower essence makers tell me the same thing.

tripitaka, you are summing up other conversations I am having elsewhere on this web!

good stuff!

Julian.

p.s.

I actually bought "the higher self" essence yesterday... which is the fifth essence in the "white light essence" range that Ian White made... I have to say I was reticent to take this one, as the idea of making essences of the elements seemed pure (water, earth, fire and air)..."higher self" and such seemed a bit more implicity mental and philosophical... but I have to say also, this is one of the more powerful essences I have ever taken... I feel it at work on me for about 15 minutes each time after taking it.

I resisted taking this range of essences for a long time, as it initially appeared to me Ian White was just trying to cash in and make more product after the bush flower essences... but I have to say these are all rather good... in an ayahuasca group last year in peru, through a translator, I gave some of the earth essence to an ecudorian indigenous woman who was part of our group, and she smiled knowlingly and seemed to totally grok it right away!

Edited April 1, 2006 by folias

[Rev]

I tend to feel that human civilisations existed more than 8,000 years ago...

me too - but not like that link

Edited April 2, 2006 by Rev

[indigo264nm]

Okay okay... but has anybody ever gotten a script??!!

[wandjina]

I feel that the exo neuro networking of plant structures is well beyond the cognitive abilities of our Mammalian In vivo capabilities and the limitations of our biology. Our perceptions are inherently and dare I say entirely limited by our filtering capabilities and by the sensory niavity that we as a species collectively possess.

that's gold! Also your take on science....I couldn't agree more.

It would seem that the ideas discussed in this thread give the impression of an 'either or' argument...as if its spirituality vs. science (with me as the defender of science).

Yet it is interesting that both Julian and I see what you have written as accurately corresponding with our own beliefs (if I have understood Julian correctly), when it may appear that we are at opposite poles.

The discipline within which i study is the history and philosophy of science (HPS), and even within the field my approach is regarded as quite radical because I do not believe that the boundaries that demarcate science from other ways of knowing are real or philosophically definable...rather I view them as socio-cultural constructs (which is not to say that science, however defined, is without worth).

Put another way...that science is a cultural product and activity, and is necessarily social and fallible.

Anyhoo, when i was a science student my fellow students, tutors and lecturers regarded me as a flake because I questioned the authority of science, and held relatively 'unscientific' or 'irrational' beliefs.

Yet here, I feel like I am perceived as defending science and, in a naive and reductionist way, dismissing spirituality, or anything that can not be demonstrated as being 'real' via the scientific method.

In actuality, this is not my stance at all, perhaps especially when it comes to psychedelic experience, or the 'numinous' in general (eg. psychic phenomena)....

but it may be when I, for instance, decide to take a pharmaceutical, or supplement of some kind.

Just as orthodox 'scientific' critiques of/attacks on religion and spiritulaity (for want of a better term) can go too far, and as much as 'big-S' orthodox Science is flawed and anachronistic....reactions to this view of science can be over-compensatory, and do to 'science' what 'science' is seen to have done to 'spirit'....dismiss it, or at least dismiss most of it.

Thus, it is that those criticising ideologies generally considered by the apparent orthodoxy as unconventional and/or inferior to science, are perceived by advocates of 'out there' theories as defending science in its entirety (and perhaps even as active partcipants in the perpetuation of the status quo), and discounting all 'alternatives' in their entirety.

In this instance, and many others, this is not the case.

More, it sometimes leads proponents of conflicting views into stereotypical characterisations of the 'opposition'...so you get 'old school' renderings of science as if its some homogenous institution that speaks with one voice...which it clearly does not.

Many bonafide scientists advocate 'out there' theories, some a magnitude weirder than flower essences or wisdom supposedly channelled from long-dead Lemurians (eg Grof, Dennis McKenna, Hofmann, Shulgin etc etc)...the point is, that within science there is a myriad of understandings of what science actually is and what defines genuine knowledge....what the truth may be.

In this context, my dismissal of flower essences and, say, the loch ness monster, is not solely based on simple recourse to lack of 'scientific proof', but also on a contextualised understanding of the history of medicine and science , and on an appreciation, based in broad exposure to a wide range of ideologies, histories and sociologies etc, of well crafted arguments and nuanced/sophisticated underlying metaphysics/philosophies.

To me, the brothers' Mckenna offer such material...they are versed in science and other ways of knowing...and Grof: conventional psychiatry and psychoanalysis...through to the transpersonal and beyond.

From my perspective, these kinds of ideas are much more developed and of higher 'epistemic quality' than some ostensibly novel and 'out there' ideas, that when analysed, reveal themselves to be rooted in outmoded beliefs and cultural practices that arose from 'traditional' notions of god, religion and what was once known as natural philosophy (science itself) in the first place.

They do not simply describe whats 'really' happening as if insulated from the socio-cultural milieu within which they arose.

To me it has been most valuable to understand where ideas come from...often they have arisen out of unexpected places, and when put in their historical and cultural context, one can better appreciate them...and I include orthodox science here too.

Sure, human beings can observe and interpret the communications of plants and how they are relevent to themselves!

as to your accusations of being "anthropomorphickal", I think there are facets and patterns of universal gaian intelligence that are accesible as potential by all beings...

facets...sure...I couldn't agree more....its the idea that we can completely understand the whole 'kit and caboodle' that i disagree with.

I tend to feel that human civilisations existed more than 8,000 years ago... there is quite a bit of archaelogical material that is found quite regularly... which certainly, when put together, paints something of a picture of there being civilisations previous to ours.

human civilisations more that >8000 years ago? I wouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand, but neither would I necessarily associate 'civilisation' with monolithic architecture (anyway, I was responding to the idea of human civilisations 10s of thousands of years ago, which IMO is absurd ...there's a big difference between 8000 and tens of thousands!).

...but as far as archeological evidence is concerned, there isn't anything convincing IMO. These formations in japan are very interesting, and I've read a fair bit about them...but the evidence would seem to suggest they are geological rather than human artefacts.

I like to keep an open mind (rather than a closed mind ;-) about such things... the history of the past as we know it may be very limited.

you really are an accomplished button-pusher Julian

Perhaps it is that you are being closed-minded towards what seem to be less-fantastic or less-interesting explanations for phenomena?

I see there are different levels of entities too... some are just pesky little cartoonish critters which look computer generated (i.e. primitive!) ... some ARE forms of one's psyche and then do reveal themselves as such...

Some are extraordinarily complex and say clearly and plainly "we are one"... others appear extraordinary alien and either come to play or perform operations or "checkups"... this is really, really common with people who use tryptamines and it happens to me very often!

hmmm, yes...often experience does seem to indicate/reveal an 'ecology of souls'.....

re operations and procedures/checks...this I find partcularly fascinating...especially with reference to archaic shamanic archetypes involving beings placing objects inside of people, 'little men'/ spirits jumping in and out of peoples bodies; and also more modern 'alien abductions' .

There seems to be a correlation between these transformative experiences.

One instance that I often recall, was when a group of beings, after tinkering around inside me for some time, took it upon themsleves to pull me apart into tiny little pieces (in the nicest possible way :D )

It then occurred to me...'oh, this is like that shamanic archetypal experience where you get dismembered'...and then everything suddenly dissolved and i found myself somewhere else.

[Legba]

Okay okay... but has anybody ever gotten a script??!!

You'll be right, mate. Stockholm syndrome should be kickin' in any time now...

[Being]

okay so i kind of left this thread, as to me the whole thing felt like standing in a room with an elephant and saying 'wow check out that elephant!' and hearing in reply 'no no no scientific law is very clear and Final there can not possibly be an elephant in this room'...

I live in the rainforest, my house on all sides is surrounded by different plants and trees, and so forth for miles around.. I went out into this today and spent some very focused time with the plant kingdom, and after reading this thread there were a few points that came up for me so I would like to contribute to the discussion….

When I was outside today I got to thinking about how I used to perceive plants and started to see them in this way which I think many if not most western people on this planet view them. It’s a relationship very bound up in our scientific understanding of plants, but its all very mechanistic and cold, or at the other end of the spectrum, very superficial and based on the pleasure of looking at their forms… I feel as though the recognition of consciousness in plants has been very conveniently removed from our own consciousness so as to make it so much easier to destroy vast areas of them, or to eventually allow our tinkering with their very structure to suit our own needs via crops…

It feels to me as though as a species we see plants, above all other forms on the planet, as the representation of ‘nature’ itself… the definition of animals as ‘nature’ is certainly there but its not as strong.. we can associate ourselves a little too closely with ‘animals’…

So it seems to me, that the recognition of plant consciousness is a very big deal when it comes to humanities acknowledgment of consciousness being present other than ourselves, being present in nature, and being made up of all nature, the ‘super consciousness’….

But most importantly, of us not being felt as so apart from nature in our qualities of consciousness, of indeed being an expression of nature! This idea that the horrible misplaced Human is fucking up the planet like a super cyber monkey disease, when humans are an expression of nature, the disease is the memes, the concepts separating us from actually fully realising and acknowledging that we Are nature itself… There is soooo much deep-rooted stuff responsible for these dominant memes, from really early religion to the reaction to religion or ‘spirit’ in science…

In regards to this concept of ‘vibrational signatures’, from my perspective, you cannot separate this from consciousness, it is a product, or indeed an essence, of consciousness… so when I acknowledge flower essences, the imprint created by a particular plant’s consciousness, I am acknowledging with that a whole range of ‘phenomena’ present in the ‘material’ realm as a result of the ‘non physical’ realm:

The imprint of a human’s consciousness I find very stark… the impressions from second hand clothes, the myriad of ‘vibes’ associated with people’s houses – moving into a new house – the imprints left by the previous tenants, touch a ‘shaman’s’ rattle and its pretty hard to ignore! The heart transplant patient suddenly taking on completely unknown characteristics of the donors personality, the ‘psychic’ reading the vibrational imprint of an individual’s possessions in order to locate them (isn’t it funny how law enforcement continues a lack of acknowledgment to their long standing relationship with these ‘witches’..? ).

There are of course so many implications to formally acknowledging all this, a major one being that it would mean a huge leap in responsibility for our whole being’s effects on the world around us, that we can no longer hide in our isolated towers of self, allowing the internal horror show to play with the reassurance that our neighbour will never be aware of our fantasies to dismember them, not to mention the whole ‘entity’ can of worms…

So yeah for me this whole thread is expressing some maybe more surface issues of a much deeper issue regarding consciousness, ‘nature’ (I say ‘nature’ as jeez to me this computer is ‘nature’ the Sydney harbour bridge is ‘nature’ the Hubble telescope is ‘nature’..).. and our place in all of it, no doubt the trees and plants looking on to all this as bemused witnesses!