The Real Alternative

Leave a comment

The Mystery behind Subconscious Mind

Image via Tumblr

By sendcruz

Have you ever thought of the connection behind conscious and unconscious mind? Or the connection behind practical and divine world? If you have an interest in this greyish part of human mind then surely you have come across the terms of zodiac signs that are solely attached with astrology.

Many people believe that subconscious mind is the gift of God while the conscious mind which man deals with in practical world is nothing but a slave of the subconscious mind.

Then it can be derived that subconscious mind is more conscious than the conscious mind. Once Albert Einstein had said ‘The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.’

Intuition that arises from the unconscious mind is a sacred gift of divine. The intellect is a faithful servant. The intellect reflects as we see from the outer world.  In our waking world, the servant rides while the sacred gift (Subconscious Mind) patiently trod behind.

A picturesque analogy can be depicted between iceberg and human mind. The subconscious mind is the bottom part of the iceberg that remains below the water level. Yet subconscious mind is the maximum portion of total human psychology that is responsible for all the events.

Coming to the ocean part, it is the ultimate consciousness. Specialists often discuss about the consciousness field which covers a major part of the subconscious mind.

Basically the true nature of ice-berg is water. Again ocean, which comprises of water, is considered as God. So speaking frankly, human being is part of a divine soul.

The subconscious mind is superior to conscious mind.

In ancient times while considering the sun shine symbols, the total sky which is considered as round (360°) is divided into 12 segments based on constellation which has an angle of 30° each. These symbols are also called Sabian Symbols. These symbols are a set of 360 phrases of words. The different images of the zodiac signs corresponds to the different word phrases. The phrases might consist of 2 words to 21 words.

These symbols were born in San Diego in 1925 by Marc Edmund Jones. He was a famous American astrologer and spiritualist.

The name was termed as Sabian because Sabian people were an ancient race of alchemist, who lived in Harran, a city on the banks of Euphrates river in Mesopotamia. The city existed from the third millennium BC to thirteenth century AD. The Sabians were engaged into Talismanic magic. It is such a type of magic that is involved in coercing a deity’s power into a physical object.

The Sabian oracle opens the door between our inner feelings and intentions and the conscious mind.

In ancient times at Babylon, the moon-cult was the national religion. They are also known as Chaldeans. The word Chaldeans mean ‘Moon-worshippers’. As the religion removed elsewhere, the Sabian people practiced the tradition of Chaldean astrology.

Article Source:

About the Author

In this article author Shane Dawson discusses about the conscious and subconscious mind. Apart from that the article also describes about the Sabian Symbols.

Leave a comment

Her – Review by MC

Fair Use/Dealing rationale for image from Her - low res image for review and educational purposes

Fair Use/Dealing rationale for image from Her – low res image for review and educational purposes

I watched Spike Jonze’s film, Her, the other night. A few more points came to mind that weren’t covered here, mostly about different types of love (eros, agape, and so on). But this was my first shot at audio reviewing, so I was lucky to get as much in as I did. No notes or excessive thinking beforehand. Just first impressions…

I should add that I was somewhat inspired by the New York Times photographer Bill Cunningham, who takes fashion photos on the streets of New York and talks about them every week at The Times’ website. If the documentary about Cunningham is accurate, it seems that he takes a quick look at his pics on a storyboard before taping his weekly commentary. I like that spontaneity, and tried to emulate it here.

Maybe with practice I’ll be half as good at this as he is!

Leave a comment

On The Subject Of God – Part 2


Karma (Photo credit: pixel8 (RCRD))

“On The Subject Of God” was submitted to by the author. It originally appears in the About section at Alfsbootcampblog.

On the Subject of Karma

The word Karma comes from the ancient Sanskrit language of India. Its nearest translation into English, is the word Action. The word karma also has many sub-meanings & associated meanings not in the English language. The following meanings are from this author’s spiritual enquiry into the word karma. Because from a destiny perspective, karma is one of the most important words to fully comprehend in life.

In expanded definition, karma is a by-product of the impulse of creative-intelligence that we call thought. Every thought contains the creative element of karma in its action; it is a ‘cause & effect’ vibratory influence created out of the action of thought. Karmic influence once created is timeless and always returns to its initiated source…to its owner. Merely to think & desire, is to create karma that is automatically bound by affinity to its source. Its creative influence enters the interactive spiritual domain of Nature that underwrites the physical domain of Nature, to eventually return as influence to the individual life-form that created it.

Clarification: In the duel physical & spiritual creative workings of Nature, karma is a creative tool of evolution to process the individual evolution of life via its ‘cause & effect’ influence. It is a creative influence that has no boundaries on the known physical plane or the unknown spiritual plane of life. It is the vibratory influence of karma, that interacts with the
primordial archetypal intelligence of Nature underwriting the biology & chemistry of life. It is this invisible interactive process with the intelligence of Nature, that allows the biology of life to adapt to changes in its physical environment…albeit on a slow time scale.

All brain structured life, has evolved and is continuously adapting through the creative process of karma and its ‘cause & effect’ influence interacting with the creative-intelligence of Nature. Animals have no say in this interactive process, they function through instincts alone. Unlike the highly creative human being, they do not think & create with a thought,
their life is entirely instinctive. They create no ‘adverse karma’ in the quantum workings of Nature as a result, unlike the human being.

Clarification: Karmic ‘cause & effect’ influence enters the spiritual workings of Nature, to interact with the archetypal primordial intelligence underwriting, propelling & processing life. What we input into that primordial intelligence with our human karma, is what we receive back from that spiritual dimension that underwrites the physical processes of life. As we sow so do we reap, sums up perfectly the invisible process of karma operating in the evolution of the unique human species.

Where a human being is concerned, karma becomes attached to the action of words, to the actions of deeds, to the product of our unique human creativity. A karmic influence that takes on the quality of the thought that created it and is attached to the actions & outcomes of that thought. That is where the word ‘destiny’ comes into the equation of human created karma. We create a plus or minus destiny on the ladder of evolution out of the product of karma. What quality of karma we create is what quality of karma we receive back to process our continuing evolution…individually & collectively.

Explanation: All karmic influence we create returns to its initiated state in the spiritual workings of Nature. Returned to the individual, to the family, to the town, to the province, to the nation, to the world that has created that karmic influence. If that karmic influence and its qualities do not return in a present life cycle, then it will return in another life cycle, long after those that created it have departed this planet. Therefore human created karma, is a perpetuating inherited influence contained in the lineage of the deceased. Influence that becomes a karmic inheritance locked
into the family tree. A karmic inheritance tied to the individual, to the family, to the tribe, to the nation, to the civilization that created it.

Returning karmic influence is what we are unknowingly influenced by in life. It invisibly influences our thoughts, actions, deeds and creativity unconsciously. We also perpetuate the deeds of our ancestors through that karmic inheritance. Therefore we are not free of the past, we our anchored to the past within evolution through the product of karma as well as our genes. We only think we are free-thinking, for we are inextricably caught up in its ‘cause & effect’ product. A invisible product (equation) that returns through the hidden workings of Nature to influence our creativity and expression. That is the invisible power of karmic influence, created by mankind and returned to mankind. Returning influence that can be a positive or negative equation in its effect on our biological intelligence, creativity, evolution & destiny.

About adverse karma

There are two opposing forces structuring the evolution of the primordial archetypal intelligence of Nature…and therefore life. They are the Negative & Positive poles of Nature responsible for the phenomena of all the opposites found in life…including the atom. In brief definition, negative archetypal intelligence is responsible for dissolving life & matter, as positive archetypal intelligence is responsible for creating life & matter. A perpetuating cosmic authored process, underwritten by absolute intelligence we have yet to understand with our dissolvable human intelligence.

Thus the impulse of creative-intelligence we call thought, can be structured out of the negative pole of Nature or the positive pole of Nature. As human beings with conscious free-will and the ability to think, we possess a unique evolutionary gift to choose the pole of our actions. Thus are we (individually & collectively) responsible for choosing our destiny in evolution as grown adults. Therefore up or down on the ladder of evolution where ‘quality’ of consciousness is concerned. The quotable quote “To Be Or Not To Be” sums it up well.

Clarification: Karma created out of a positive structured thought, always returns as a positive influence to uphold & advance the consciousness of the individual. Karma created out of a negative structured thought, always returns as a dissolving influence to impede & retard the consciousness of the individual. Our human created karma has the creative potential to either support life & evolution, or retard life and evolution. As human beings, we individually & collectively create the positive or negative outcome of our evolution…our destiny.

To sum up: Human creativity & the karma that comes out of it, is a unrealized power that either compliments the primordial forces of Nature underwriting life or degrades them. Thus human creativity, is able to influence the spiritual archetypal intelligence that underlies physical biological intelligence that science knows so much about …yet does not understand where it comes from. A unknown, unrealized, unproven reality that is yet to be uncovered & acquired by mankind on the long path of evolution. That is why the author has said, “it’s a waste of human intelligence to
argue/debate its reality in boot camp”. We have to acquire its reality for it to become a reality…but not with words, but experience. That is the solution to its acceptance in the human mind…not argument or debate.

Kind regards from the author to the reader.

Leave a comment

Consciousness: Mind And Machine

Image via Tumblr

By Eldon Taylor

A popular idea now-a-days is the notion of the ghost in the machine. From scientific articles to entertainment, this reference is to the idea of consciousness. Once again, the study of consciousness is occupying the minds of science and science fiction.

Just after the turn of the century, science basically abandoned the study of consciousness per se’ on the grounds that it was too ambiguous and non-quantifiable. However, the development of artificial intelligence, so-called thinking computers, interactive virtual reality environments and non-local action, or action at a distance, has placed the study of consciousness in the fore front of many minds.

What is consciousness? This issue is devoted to some of the intrigue involved in efforts to create “thinking machines” modeled after man, minus of course, his limitations.


Language is often thought to be the tool of consciousness and evidence for the kind of consciousness that makes man different from monkeys. Indeed, language has often been referred to as the “jewel of cognition.” Some scientists have argued that Neanderthal man possessed advanced talking ability. This assertion is largely based upon a neck bone found in 1988 (SN: 4/24/93, p.262). Other scientists argue for a more recent origin to speech. Recent in this sense is between 50 and 100 thousand years ago. By contrast, early origin theorists date the beginning of language at over 2 million years ago.

The evolution and history of language has a bearing on certain philosophical issues where consciousness is concerned. For example, take any date for the first appearance of language. Let’s for fun just assume some hairy bi-pedal creature that has never spoken. Is this creature conscious? Conscious in the sense of man? Now one day the creature utters some meaningful form of speech. Not a grunt or guttural sound like all animals, but some form, beginning, of speech. Is the animal now conscious?

What is the difference between the consciousness of animals and man? What is intended by distinguishing between the two conscious forms as different and why? If a primate species shows the ability to learn, remember and associate learnings, some insist this is evidence for reason. Most flatly refuse to recognize it as such. Is it possible that by recognizing the field of consciousness as one worthy and ripe for study, that mans’ consciousness will lose its unique elevated status? What precisely is it that one means by consciousness anyway?

Certainly reason preceded language. It would be rather odd if it were the other way around. Still, that’s an interesting thought.

Some seem to reason only with the tools of their language. In other words, their reason is limited by the rules and definitions of their language. Plus, there is some argument in favor of certain language structure as having greater or lesser faculties for developing logical thinking. Literal languages, for example, such as German, tend to encourage the development of logical thinkers. However intriguing all this may be, it still stands to reason that reason preceded the conceptualization and development of speech. As such, one is hard pressed to limit the consciousness of a species on the basis of sound patterns called speech.

Oh, and it gets still tougher. For there are sound patterns that resemble speech uttered by so-called non-conscious animals such as whales and dolphins. So, what is consciousness?

Is consciousness a matter of wakefulness? No, it can’t be just that for one can be a conscious being and still be asleep. Is consciousness memory? Well, according to the experiments of Cleve Baxter, plants exhibit memory. Where science abandoned the study of consciousness years ago, the problems inherent to describing consciousness have proliferated during the absence. The advent of animal studies, plant studies and synthetic or artificial intelligence have greatly complicated the matters of consciousness. Or perhaps, in the alternative, simplified them.


For most people, parts of the left brain handle the affairs of language. Brain hemispheric studies including the now popular Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans show that the right ear sends acoustic information to the left hemisphere. Well, according to Marc Hauser of Harvard University and Karin Andersson of Radcliff College in Cambridge, rhesus monkeys “display a similar cerebral setup, with the left half of the brain often taking responsibility for vocalizations intended to signal aggression” (SN: 5/21/94, p333). If this is true, does this mean that the anatomical evidence for language processing is evidence for consciousness in the sense that we normally think of mankind’s consciousness. If not, what are the differences?


For many, mind equals brain. Mind is a more general terms that refers to the processes handled by brain. Therefore, mind is often an interchangeable term with consciousness. Is mind equal to brain? The chief area of enquiry offering evidence one way or another to this question is a discipline often held in poor regard. Still, literally thousands of laboratory experiments in scientific parapsychology demonstrate that there are many aspects of mind that can not be reduced to anatomical or material brain.

For example, data clearly supports the “reality” of telepathy, clairvoyance and psychokinesis. This seems obvious to this commentator, but then the biographies of some of the world’s most respected people provide a richer picture than that found in science. However, the point is simple. Whether it is from the genius of Einstein or the laboratory of a modern parapsychologist, mind is not equal to brain! What does this mean with respect to consciousness?

A wonderful Star Trek adventure that I can remember had the Enterprise actually forming its own consciousness and then creating a new life form. Somehow, as Mr. Data explained, the activity of the starship’s computers and records began to take on a “more than the sum of the parts” activity, form its own neural network and so forth. Will machines ever become conscious?


This was the headline in a recent Science News publication: Simulated Creatures Evolve and Learn. The article by Richard Lipkin went on to cite the work of Karl Sims of Thinking Machines in Cambridge, Mass., who “devised a simulated evolutionary system in which virtual creatures compete for resources in a three-dimensional arena…The creatures, resembling toy-block robots, enter one-on-one contests in which they vie for control of a desired object—an extra cube. Winners—deemed more fit—reproduce, while losers bear no offspring. Sims endows the virtual environment with physical parameters, such as gravity and friction, and restricts behaviors to plausible physical actions” (SN: 7/23/94, p63). Sims believes that it may be easier to evolve virtual entities with intelligent behavior than to create them from scratch. Artificial intelligence researchers have long sought to develop the so-called thinking machine. Unlike Sims, most begin by attempting to model the computer after the patterns of man. For some, this is the neural model of the brain while for others it is the deductive/inductive model of reason. Perhaps Sims’ method is more man-like than the other two. Mankind is thought to have evolved. Does this help us understand consciousness? Oh, and what about the collective of consciousness? Will machines soon be contributing to this field of consciousness? Will a machine ever dream?


The “Genius Hypothesis” advanced by Ervin Laszlo and reported in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (Vol.8, No.2, pp257-267, 1994), asserts that the minds “of unusually creative people are in spontaneous, direct, though usually not conscious, interaction with other minds in the creative process itself.” Laszlo’s paper sheds light on the “archetypal experience” described by Carl Jung while using history, physics, psychology, artistic production and cultural development to clearly suggest the strong possibility (in this commentators opinion, the only real possibility) that not only do minds communicate, but they do so at a distance as well!

Is the collective, or the shared consciousness experience, an independent consciousness? Is it possible that unique (individual) conscious entities participate as transceivers, sending and receiving, and that the total of consciousness is this collective? Does the collective have a plan, a will, does it dream? Or is it just a repository? Does it have a neural network or some analogous something that we might refer to as a non-spatial field? I mean, its not organic or silicone is it?


Perhaps consciousness is something that has to do with being conscious of consciousness. I mean, are monkeys truly conscious of being conscious? Could they even entertain the idea of consciousness without an object? Or consciousness as a character in someone else’s dream? Does a monkey ask itself if it really exists?

Is that a fair direction to take our questions regarding consciousness? After all, are we not likely to be forced to admit the notion of “devolution” if we do? Are there not all together too many homo sapien sapiens on the planet that don’t give the proverbial “hoot” about who they are or where they came from. How many of these people ask the question, “Do I really exist?” Will silicone ask the question, “Who am I?” If the Japanese have their way, the answer is—probably! A “Darwin Machine” is being created by researchers at ATR laboratories in Kyoto, Japan. The artificial brain which uses an evolving neural network is due to be completed by 2001. Hugo de Garis, an ATR scientist, says the purpose is to produce a silicone brain with more than 1 billion artificial neurons.

Science News says the machine “will come in the form of a neural network and will exist within a massively parallel computer. To create such a complex system, the researchers will have the network build itself. ‘Cellular automata,’ each one a distinct computer program, will actually forge their own linkages.”

This approach, called “evolutionary engineering,” provides for the growth of the silicone brain via connections. “The neural net grows when cellular automata send ‘growth signals’ to each other, then connect via synapses.”

(And you thought genetic engineering was something to wonder about).


Defining consciousness turns out to be a process somewhat a-kin to searching for the core of an onion. As we enter the new year, and perhaps entertain thoughts of the upcoming turn of the century, revisiting consciousness is more than a philosophical exercise or a scientific enquiry. It is a duty, even a moral imperative, to re-evaluate the nature of consciousness for this inherently devises the strategy by which mankind treats itself and all life. For me, and I suspect for many others, many changes are seen as necessary for the human race to actualize the highest of its potentials. As in history, most certainly some of these changes will be brought about by difficult times. I am reminded of something Martin Luther King said, “I can never be what I ought to be, until you are what you ought to be.” King went on to point out that it was precisely the inter-related fabric of life that each of us was interdependent upon.

Perhaps, it is the inter-related nature of all life, consciousness itself, that we are interdependent upon. Perhaps, just perhaps, mankind will only know his highest most noble self when he offers the deepest of respect for all life. Perhaps the invigorated enthusiasm searching for a firm hold on this stuff called consciousness will eventually give rise to the respect I speak of.

Thank you and BE WELL & HAPPY!

Eldon Taylor is director of Progressive Awareness Research and the author of over 200 books and tapes (
Article distributed by Recent Articles


Intelligent Design On Another Planet?

Micah's DNA

Micah's DNA by micahb37 via Flickr

by: Babu G. Ranganathan

Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed so that they can make other robots just like themselves from raw materials.

Now, imagine an alien visitor coming to the planet and, after many years of studying these robots, coming to the conclusion that since science can explain how these robots work and function there’s no reason to believe that there was an ultimate intelligent designer behind them.

The analogy above certainly is not perfect but it is sufficient to reveal the fallacious thinking of those who attack intelligent design behind life and the universe.

Chance physical processes can produce some level of order but it is not rational to believe that the highest levels of order in life and the universe are by chance. For example, amino acids have been shown to be able to come into existence by chance but not more complex structures such as proteins which require that the various amino acids be in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. A single cell has millions of proteins.

There is no innate chemical tendency for amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they’re directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules in our genetic code. Without being in a proper sequence protein molecules will not function.

The sequence of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) determines the sequence of molecules in proteins. Furthermore, without DNA there cannot be RNA, but without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without eiether DNA and RNA there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot be either DNA or RNA. They’re all mutually dependent upon each other for existence!

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species is due to a common Designer rather than common biological ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn’t that prove evolution? No. It wouldn’t be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet – Earth! In the Earth’s past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life. However, they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it won’t be by chance so it still wouldn’t help support any argument for evolution.

We also know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from eternity. The existence and complexity of the universe point to a Supreme Designer and Creator!

Those advocating the teaching of intelligent design are not demanding that Darwinian theory no longer be taught. Rather, the advocates of intelligent design want the merits of both theories taught side by side when the issue of origins is covered in science classes and textbooks. This is only fair.

Science cannot prove we are here by either design (creation) or by chance (evolution), but students should have full information available to decide which position science best supports.

What we believe about life’s origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn’t mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there’s no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

An organization of highly qualified scientists, known as the Institute for Creation Research (, has published some excellent books and material supporting faith in intelligent design for life and the universe.

Books published by ICR cover various issues such as the origin of life, genetic and biological similarities between species, the limits to biological variation and natural selection in nature, the fossil record, the age of the earth, etc.

Babu G. Ranganathan
(B.A. Bible/Biology)

Other helpful resources: | http://www.ChristianAnswers.Net |

Scientific Evidence for a Young World:

About The Author

Babu G. Ranganathan is an experienced Christian writer. He has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who’s Who In The East. The author has a website at:


Free Will?

Universum - C. Flammarion, Holzschnitt, Paris ...

Universum - C. Flammarion, Holzschnitt, Paris 1888, Kolorit : Heikenwaelder Hugo, Wien 1998 via Wikipedia

By: Scott F. Paradis

Fate or free will? Choice or predestination? The debate has raged since man first conceived himself separate from his surroundings and apparently presented with options. Some say the script is written, that we move through life, experiencing the rush but not really choosing the course. Others contend that choices abound, options are infinite – we creatures are free.

Scientists exploring the nature of forces, point to the nearly infinite string of cause and effect — the consequence of every force is an incontrovertible result. Every “a” leads to a “b” leads to a “c” without deviation. Forces set in motion are not deterred from their net effect. In this construct there is no room for choice. Cause and effect, and ultimately life, are reduced to a mathematical equation moving to a determined quotient.

In the day-to-day reality of life we believe we have choices. We can choose coffee, tea or milk; beer, wine, or schnapps for that matter; or nothing at all. We can choose to wear blue, red, yellow, green; a turtleneck or cutoffs; a beret or bonnet. We can work in industry or government; services or manufacturing. We can live here, there, or nowhere at all. Choices abound. In the end – it is belief that matters.

The argument for fate, as rational as it may be, assumes a finality – a limit, an end, a definable, ultimately measurable state of existence. This argument presupposes a perspective so grand it accounts for every variable – the entire complex motif; the awe-inspiring wonder and richness of infinitely complex forces at play. The proponents of fate suppose no influence of powers outside the dimensions of what can be known. But all might not be as it seems.

Science, nor philosophy, nor religion can define the bounds of what is. The scope of it all is beyond the ability of human intellect to conceive. While we cannot see beyond the reach of our sight, we cannot presume to “know” what is out there. Luckily, however, life is not an experience in a theoretical realm. Life is a foray into a wondrous brick and mortar adventure.

Can beauty or truth exist with no conscious choice? For without the ability to choose an option, effort is for naught – all of life is a regimented process – not an engaging quest. Without choice, life would seem a hoax perpetrated on ignorant beings – an experience of the illusion, a colorful drama, but a drama lacking purpose. Without free will, life truly is a divine comedy.

If this reality is not the ultimate reality, if we are in this sensory world, temporarily immersed in the illusion, it stands to reason – powers in another dimension can influence what happens here. If we further subscribe to the belief that though we seem to live here, ultimately we are not of here, we can begin to grasp that we, ourselves, have a means to influence this reality – here again, we have a choice.

In attempting to resolve the argument between free choice and predestination we seek not an intellectual understanding of the means of this illusion, but rather the facts about who and what we are. We seek to know the truth and in this way understand and embrace our nature.

The ability to change direction, to influence an outcome is evident in what we observe. The universe is too big to confine. Our intellects cannot grasp the expanse nor understand the complexity of it all. Even if fate leads to an ultimate destination, in practice the roads to travel there are so diverse we have every choice. The opportunities in life are so varied, the promise and potential so vast that fate has no practical impact on the options before us. Our will is free enough. To experience a full and fulfilling life choose.

Copyright (c) 2010 Scott F Paradis

About The Author

Scott F. Paradis, author of “Promise and Potential: A Life of Wisdom, Courage, Strength and Will” publishes “Insights” and a free weekly ezine, “Money, Power and the True Path to Prosperity”. Subscribe now at


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,537 other followers