You may recall we wrote a post here about our surprise in learning that TED, an organization that lets brilliant people speak out about their ideas, removed talks by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock. Sheldrake questioned mainstream science’s approach to the paranormal and Hancock’s ideas are on the frontiers of science.
TED was heavily criticized for removing those talks from their archives. Their reaction to the controversy, astonishingly, was to double-down by cancelling an upcoming TEDx event in Hollywood entitled, “Brother Can You Spare a Paradigm.” It featured speakers like Russel Targ, Marianne Williamson, Marilyn Schlitz and Larry Dossey.
The Hollywood TEDx event was promoted this way: “(The event) will illuminate the urgent need to change our fundamental value system or worldview to one in which humanity pulls together rather than separately. This view would supersede the current worldview where whoever has the most toys wins. The new view is based on what science tells us about a quantum universe, with everything being interconnected and all of us being interdependent. A new science-based vision won’t take hold, though, until people know and understand that there are more humane alternatives available.”
That description apparently aroused the ire of some powerful TED backers who ardently defend the validity of mainstream science. In cancelling the event, an email sent to the organizer by TED described the ideas it was presenting as “pseudoscience.”
Futurist Marcus Anthony has written extensively about the TED controversy, including three articles that were published in Conscious Life News, in which he attempted to show how the controversy could be settled. He also brought this latest TED kurfuffle to our attention.
Marcus writes, “It is now clear that TED is controlled by a narrow and extremist skeptics collaboration which is trying to shut down knowledge and information which challenges scientific materialism. I am of the firm opinion that such ideas should be freely discussed. How else are they to be debated or examined rationally? Suppression will give these speakers and ideas more publicity.”
+++
More commentary on the TED controversy also appears at Weiler Psi.
Shortly after reading the above description of the cancelled TEDx event, which calls for a greater recognition of how everyone and everything is interconnected and interdependent, I happened upon a blog post in Sacred Spiral of Light, which included this synchronistic comment. Wouldn’t you know, synchronicity comes into play in multiples and ties it altogether!
“For me noticing synchronicity is akin to noticing that we are not separate beings but rather all connected…it is being in touch with the wonder, the magic and the power of the Universe. It is realising that the Universe is in constant communication with us all…if we can but slow down a tad and notice…”
Thank you for that, Elaine.
Trish and Rob, by no stretch of the imagination was I inferring that YOU were being borderline insulting to me. YOU definitely were not. I try to be very careful when stating my opinions on the blog in a manner that I won’t step on another person’s toes. It has become increasingly apparent over the years that Darren and I do not have a meeting of the minds. However, NOWHERE in my comments about interconnectedness did I mention his or anyone else’s name. I feel that to do so is impolite and antagonistic.
I do not attempt to “bait” anyone, or to insinuate in subtle ways that another person isn’t being straightforrward and honest. When he commented not once but twice that I “CLAIM” to be an empath, that was not nice. I find it hurtful and it certainly wasn’t called for. To state one’s ideas is one thing. To state them in such a manner goes beyond the limits of polite exchanging of ideas.
I have nothing more to say on this matter.
I find the way you are going on here rather insulting to me.
All I tried to do was find out your viewpoint on a disconnected universe coming from your empathic (?) background,because I found that a rather puzzling point of view from someone in your position.
Let’s just leave it,because no matter what I seem to say to you,it offends you,which offends me in return by the way you go on at my comments.
You said that you were going to play Devil’s advocate and according to Wikipedia –
“In common parlance, a devil’s advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil’s advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process.”
and I only quoted Wikipedia as to clear up from an independent source what to play Devil’s advocate means ,not to insult you further.
To be honest,I don’t care about this ‘debate’ any longer,because we are about as disconnected as any two people could be,so maybe I will have to coincide defeat in this matter after all.
You do my head in Connie.
Trish and Rob, when you state that we are Indra’s Net and all are interconnected, this is a statement of YOUR belief construct. Whether it is right or wrong doesn’t make any difference. It is YOUR conclusion and conviction which may or may not be accurate, but is certainly accurate for YOU and is therefore to be respected and honored as your personal belief system. I would never be so insensitive as to “argue” with any person’s ideologies (except in politics). 🙂 I made it crystal clear that I was not being argumentative, just stating my beliefs. It doesn’t matter to me who shares them, or who doesn’t. What DOES matter to me is the manner in which another person approaches me about my views…..When push comes to shove, there isn’t a single living person who truly KNOWS the workings of the vast universes in all their aspects. We may only derive our convictions from our experiences and learnings. I’ve said it a million times here: respect and honor the other persons’ point of view, without rancor or dissent. Not with insinuations that are borderline insulting. Good night to all, with blessings for everything that is Good.
Connie, I’m not insulting you. I’m stating my opinion, just as you are, as Daz is. I didn’t say you’re wrong, I said that I disagree. There’s nothing insulting in that.
I didn’t expect you to agree, Darren. You haven’t lived my life. And as for “claiming to be an empath”, that is a legitimate claim. If you go back and re-read my comments, you will see that I wrote “empathy” as one of the means by which we are able to connect with each other. My convictions have evolved, as have yours, from a lifetime of experiences to this point. I stated that I was not intending to be argumentative or antagonistic.
I have deeply rooted reasons, from countless sources too numerous to mention on a blog, that have helped establish my personal belief construct. I do not attempt to push my beliefs or convictions on anyone, but sharing them is acceptable, and the undercurrent of your double comments about my beliefs “coming from someone who claims to be an empath” are disturbing. Trish and Rob don’t agree with me, either, but they did not demean my comments. I have nothing more to say on this subject, as I shared my thoughts with a group that is generally open to such sharing, not to arguing.
I don’t think anyone is being demeaning here. Daz speaks his mind, as do you.
Re:
“they did not demean my comments”
How is that demeaning your comments ?
You seem to look for insults that are not intended.
If I disagree with you about something here you always seem to take it personally.
I give up.
See me as the demon you wish to project,
if that makes you feel better.
As for the connection topic,we must again agree to disagree,because I can’t be bothered arguing over the matter with you.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here for a moment. But first, please allow me to say that I’m not attempting to be argumentative or in any manner antagonistic. I’m simply stating my own opinion(s); nothing more, nothing less; and will offer the reasons that have created these opinions. I do not think we are all interconnected. I believe that we each have the innate abilities to connect to all things, animate and inanimate, but whether we employ those innate abilities is by the conscious or unconsious or superconscious use of choice and free will, intuition, telepathy, empathy, and synchronicity. On this planet, every living “thing” has its own carbon footprint. Every living thing has a specific DNA strand that is specific to ONLY the specific individual living thing. No two DNAs, even in twins, is identical. We are individuals.
My personal concept, (and I wish to offend no one who is Christian or who has a belief in a One God-Creator), is that each separate race: red, yellow, black, white, brown, was seeded here on Earth by a different species not of this planet or dimension. Of course this denies, for me, the Darwinian explanation of evolution. The reason: evolution is NOT selective. If Man descended and evolved from apes, (over-simplification), there would no longer be apes. Evolution doesn’t function that way. So there is that. But most importantly, again for me, is that each group of homo sapiens was created by a different species from Elsewhere, from either a different dimension, star, planet, galaxy, universe, whatever.
We are interconnected as a SPECIES because we are all human entities, regardless of our origin, and we share the same number of strands of DNA…but there is always, always a single DNA pattern in the individual that separates the individual one from the other. But, we are separate. It’s my core conviction that we have the capabilities to connect in myriad ways to each other and to all things, But that connectedness is not, for example, the same kind of connection that would be from, say, a single enormous Burst of Light that exploded into tiny particles, etc, yet were from the same Source. I don’t believe we are from the same Source, but from different Sources, and therein we derive our individuality but also our abilities to relate and connect each to the other. OK. This is too huge a subject to keep going on, but I did want to make note of it.
I still don’t get your argument Connie.
Even all different sources must merge into one on some level,even fish in the sea are separate entities that feed off one another,but are all connected by the water they live in.
You claim to be an empath,which to my understanding is to be able to feel another person’s pain and suffering.
Wouldn’t there have to be some connecting force in common with these other people and events you feel empathic towards ?
I’ve also read somewhere that we are all made from the same star stuff of the universe,even if we have different DNA.
Of course we are all individuals,but on a lot of levels we have to be connected in some way,or you would be living in a void.
I find your argument truly puzzling,especially coming from someone who claims to be an empath.
I disagree, Connie. On a profound level, it’s Indra’s net. What affects one, affects all.
All those different sources are also interconnected. If you see the big picture…and of course no one is saying we are clones.
how it could be conceived by anyone that we/everything are interconnected is beyond me –
Re:
“how it could be conceived by anyone that we/everything are interconnected is beyond me ”
I can’t see how it’s not.
But it’s like families,just because they stem from the same source doesn’t mean they all get along .Some members even kill each other,but it doesn’t mean that they weren’t connected in some way.
If there is only one source in the universe I can’t see how everything is not connected.Your argument has me puzzled.
I think gypsy made a spelling mistake.
Looks like I won’t be seeing a TED/TEDx talk about
“Aliens in the Backyard” anytime soon then,by the looks of things in the TED universe,
I guess ?-)
Doubt if we would be candidates anyway!
It is so true how we are all interconnected. I tell people so often, slow down and notice what is going on around you. There is magic everywhere!
How weird. You mention that Marianne Williamson was to be in the TEDx event. I hadn’t heard of her previously but have received an email from someone today with a synchro story about one of her books – which I’ll be publishing on my blog sometime next week.
Yes, we are all connected!
Can’t wait to read that one!
I have met Marianne. She is a true spiritual teacher who walks her talk. One of her closest friends, Rev. Sandy Scott, married my husband and I.
The TED thing is a disappointment.
Until you brought this to my attention, I thought TED was awesome. Now I realize that it is not so, and it saddens me. I’m going to have to read some of those links. Hope you had a wonderful Easter Sunday! 🙂