Is it ok to not want to do Energy Work?

  • Connor
  • Connor's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Faculty
  • Faculty
  • Look for the bare necessities
  • Posts: 2312
  • Thank you received: 533

Connor created the topic: Is it ok to not want to do Energy Work?

I've just been thinking the past few weeks about energy work. For me, I've just never wanted to do dedicated energy healing or work with spirits or any of that. I've tried to force myself because I thought it was expected of me, as a Jedi. But, of course, forcing myself means it won't work.

Does this make me less of a Jedi? Can my connection to the Force (which I believe I have a good one and am developing with it) be good enough?

Just brainstorming.

House Rules: The only rules are Paradox, Humor, and Change.
#42005
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kol Drake

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 14852
  • Thank you received: 1882

Jax replied the topic: Is it ok to not want to do Energy Work?

I would find a way to cultivate your connection that works for you. Since we know music is a gift of yours, I would experiment with things like free form composing, turning your brain off in the process. Basically a musical, creative meditation. During that, focus on expanding, and connecting to your whole body in the process. It will be energy work, but in a natural form for you. ;-)
#42023

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Kol Drake
  • Kol Drake's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Faculty
  • Faculty
  • koldrake55@yahoo.com
  • Posts: 4193
  • Thank you received: 1911

Kol Drake replied the topic: Is it ok to not want to do Energy Work?

What is the purpose of music?
Your quest to 'make noise'?

Is the goal no different for wanting the 'energy' of the music to instill emotion in the listeners?

Can not music heal a hurt or soothe a soul?
It is energy work.

Why ignore the potential of the Force?
#42024

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Connor
  • Connor's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Faculty
  • Faculty
  • Look for the bare necessities
  • Posts: 2312
  • Thank you received: 533

Connor replied the topic: Is it ok to not want to do Energy Work?

Kol, that's what I was talking about. Music is energy work, fine.

But, you know what I'm talking about. I'm speaking more directly about abilities that go beyond the comprehension of science to explain them. Like, empathic abilities, telekinesis, levitation, energy healing.

Jedi tend to be interested in finding how the Force can go beyond comprehension.

Granted, I've never seen proof that any of these abilities are possible. I only trust they are because I also have no reason to believe they are fake.

I don't know what I'm trying to say. But, I think you both understand what I'm getting at...

We have a culture in the community that believes this kind of esoterica is part of being a Jedi. I'm asking if it's ok not to be interested in that and still carry the Jedi name.

House Rules: The only rules are Paradox, Humor, and Change.
#42028
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kol Drake

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 14852
  • Thank you received: 1882

Jax replied the topic: Re:Is it ok to not want to do Energy Work?

My concern is you avoiding it because it doesn't work for you the way it works for others. Everyone is different. If you know that just practicing things doesn't work for you, find what does. It isn't about fancy skills in the end but the connection to the Force and strengthening it.
#42029

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Kol Drake
  • Kol Drake's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Faculty
  • Faculty
  • koldrake55@yahoo.com
  • Posts: 4193
  • Thank you received: 1911

Kol Drake replied the topic: Re:Is it ok to not want to do Energy Work?

Is It Logical To Believe In Something We Can't See
[/b]

When it comes to religion, many people express that they have a hard time believing in something they can't see.
That myth is about to be expelled...

Size: Micro
I can not see microbes or things that affect my body. However, using a tool such as a microscope, I can see a magnified image of things too small to be see with the naked eye. I am not actually viewing the specific thing, but I understand the principle of the microscope, and it seems to be a valid one. None the less, I will accept it as confirmation that such things smaller than my eyes permit exist.

Is there anything smaller than them? Well, we could discuss atoms. And we could discuss quarks and subatomic particles, etc. We do not see these things directly, but we can test their existence. And we even have to accept due to our own observations and deductions that at a microscopic level these things could be based upon even smaller things, and that they seem to (at that level) hold to their own kind of physics.

Somehow, somewhere, buried in it all has to be some universal equation to describe how everything works, except that we can not seem to get all the data. Based on experiments and with crude measuring (compared to the subatmoic levels) we can develop equations which closely approximate the behavior exhibited in nature as we casually observe it.

In the meanwhile, we see oddities in nature that can not be explained by our equations.

Size: Macro
Now on to a macro scale. How big is the sun... the orbit of the Earth... the size of our galaxy? Where are we positioned in it? We have images and pictures from the outside of the galaxy looking in. However these are all estimations based on information coming at us. We have not really been out that far.

The time it takes for light to travel to us at our observation point interferes with our perception of the here-and-now. Objects we "see" are mere images of different times (based on distance) of distant object. As with stars, their real position is no where near the place we think we see them; we are looking at light emitted from them long ago that is just now reaching us. We 'see' their ancient light and position; not their 'actual' spot in current space. Does that mean they are no less stars or galaxies?

It is just as reasonable to assume that that which we can not see on the extreme exists as well, and that it too could be just a piece of a larger component. Planets of star systems of galaxies of super clusters of.... It is quite possible that the first light of things has not even begun to reach us yet. Yet, somehow we believe they are out there.

Overview of Size
So we have postulated that it is reasonable to assume that there are things that are smaller and larger than things we can actually measure. As our measuring tools and methods get better, we continually discover more pieces of the universe that we did not know existed.

We may assume there is a 10th planet out there based on anomalies in the orbits of the other nine... who knows? All in all, size in itself has told it is is logical to believe in something we can't see... based on size.

Dimensions
Okay, let us prod into dimensions. I am going to assume that you have a working knowledge of 0th, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimensions. (i.e. a two dimensional creature confined to a two dimensional universe can neither see or interact willfully with either another two dimensional creature in a parallel dimension, nor a three dimensional creature who is not intersecting that two dimensional plane.) As we see the example hold through for each dimension minus one, we can also stipulate that the same holds true for each dimension plus one.

Thus, it is mathematically reasonable to assert that the existence of another three dimensional universe that parallel to our own is unaccessible by us. And, furthermore, we must admit along the same lines that a fourth dimensional creature would easily be able to observe and interact with our universe without our ability to get to his dimension. This extrapolation could continue on up to an infinite number of dimensions.

The dimension theories presented here come from a mathbook about dimensions called "Flatland " by Edwin A. Abbott, which is a verbally illustrated fictional universe; other theories come from a scientific theory book called "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawkings, which puts complex laws of nature in layman's terms. 'Real' theories... 'real conjecture'...

Time
Now let us add another ripple to the possibilities. Time. Time itself is typically said to be the fourth dimension, and that is solely based on the premises that we are in third-space. For a fourth-dimensional being time would be the fifth dimension. It is reasonable to deduce that time in itself can be applied and treated like a space-like dimension for the purpose of modeling points in a time-space continuum, but it does not necessarily hold true that time is the final dimension, rather a different kind of vector altogether. No matter what method, we can insist that an object in any space also exists in that space at a particular moment in time.

Thus, if an object were transported forward in time, or backwards, it would no longer be present at the spacial co-ordinate for the current moment. Eventually it would exist when we caught up to it, and from its own perspective, who knows... but that is not important for this discussion. Time is measured based on the position and movement of objects within our dimension. And the degree of measurement is subject to the granularity that we can observe and define in relationship to one another (such as the Earth's double motion: a rotation and high speed orbit, which seem unnoticeable or certainly does not distract us that much).

It is reasonable and logical to assume the possibility that things can exist in different places (out of view or accessability), of sizes, dimensions, and within time that could exist without being viewed. The twenty dollar bill I just burned, still exists in its valued state back in time. And an unborn child will exist sometime in the future.

It is also possible to reason that we have not found all the vectors (perhaps we do not have access to them). It is also reasonable to assume that time itself could be viewed in its entirety by another dimension of time, thus without interacting, being affected, or being measured by the original vector.

It is possible that there may be different kinds of vectors we do not know about. So far we know vectors can go forward and backward, and some like time seem to only go forward. Is it possible to assume that some 'vectors' are actually planes (or even high dimensions)? Could there be a vector of no direction, like the 0th, which simply exists? Mathematically, yes. A time vector of 0th dimension would never begin, never end, and always be.

Affects on Believing
I have never been to the North pole, but I am pretty certain it exists. How do I know pictures were not forgeries, or that the person was not just showing me a picture of a snowbank in their backyard? Gravity is 'something'. We sort of measure it by how it pulls on a mass which we measure as weight... but we do not have a means to measure gravity itself. We theorize about it; launch rockets into orbits and compensate for it but, gravity escapes us (so far).

Through our exploration and search for the Force, we will need to see, does the Force fit any of these descriptions? With the measures mentioned before, we can see there are 'things' we assume to exist even though we have no immediate means to detect nor quantify them. Some things we take for granted are still only theories, conjecture but are taken as 'fact' for the sake of supporting hypotheses. Do they though? We may not know, because we can not measure them due to our limitations. However, references to such things should not be immediately dismissed.

At this point, one can accept the possibility of things that can not be seen or scientifically measured having a probability of existence. Unfortunately, since specific probability is based solely on specific measurements, one can only conclude that there is a non-zero chance of such things possibly existing, and that should other pieces of evidence appear that support this theory, the level of 'faith' should be adjusted appropriately: a tangible acceptance of something currently intangible.

Just because something can not be seen or measured, does not mean it does not exist. It could be bigger, smaller, distant, obstructed, evasive, existing in another moment in time, in another dimension, or in a parallel dimension. Unless we can conclusively check all places (and we physically can not), the best we can do is conclude:

The possibility of existence can not be discounted. Therefore, we should be able to ascertain some degree of probability by examining other evidences.

And that evidence is the 40+ years of study of the mind, consciousness and such phenomena as telepathy, remote viewing, and energy medicine which is now considered nearly mainstream after the many studies which indicate 'something' is happening when tested properly. It is why the Soviet and US government spent time and money on black ops research into certain areas of the mind for that same 40+ years -- because it had potential for exploitation.

And just to play 'black helicopter wolf crier' -- do you really think these tested findings would be released to the common person for their general knowledge and use? I mean, how can the people in charge control you if you have the power to read their minds, watch them behind closed doors, and general live a life which does not NEED to be controlled by the egos in Washington and beyond? Denial and suppression is the easiest method to keep the sheeple in line. Drink the high fructose corn syrup'ed kool aid and ignore the centuries of 'antedotial evidence' which equals 'not believable' in certain circles.

Only took the medical community a century to finally concede that acupuncture might actually do things which help the body heal. Even though they were doing demonstrations way back in the 60s on how a few pins could let someone get their teeth drilled pain free.

Psychic researches have, themselves, determined through experimentation that psychic powers are NOT explained by means of physical laws. The experiements referred to were not presented to debunk the reality of psychic powers, rather, they were presented to establish the reality of psychic powers as having no physical barriers. Yet, one avenue through which persons are lured into New Age practices is by presenting psychic powers as naturally occurring phenomena, even though psychic powers cannot be explained in terms of the laws of physics. A substitute "reality" map is needed to map this new territory.

If 'seeing' is the only way to believe -- stop breathing. You can not see air but without it -- you will have a shitty day.
One should not dismiss the Force as easily.
#42035
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Brandel Valico
  • Brandel Valico's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Member
  • Member
  • CARPE NOCTEM
  • Posts: 431
  • Thank you received: 90

Brandel Valico replied the topic: Is it ok to not want to do Energy Work?

I've just been thinking the past few weeks about energy work. For me, I've just never wanted to do dedicated energy healing or work with spirits or any of that. I've tried to force myself because I thought it was expected of me, as a Jedi. But, of course, forcing myself means it won't work.

Does this make me less of a Jedi? Can my connection to the Force (which I believe I have a good one and am developing with it) be good enough?


I guess my response would change depending on if you feel that such things are what makes you a Jedi?

If you do then yeah your failing.... :wow

Let me guess that doesn't feel right does it?

That's because it's not any of those things that make someone a Jedi. Anyone who says it is or acts like it is should re-evaluate their own understanding of what it means to be a Jedi. Both in the fiction and in real life there are many people who aren't Jedi who can do all those things with never once having seen or studied anything Jedi related.

The simple answer is that no it doesn't make you less of a Jedi.

The philosophy and mindset and methodology of life and learning it and applying it to all aspects of ones life is what makes one a Jedi. The energy work and the rest are not and should never be the goal.

It is regrettable that often the focus does seem to be more towards the energy work then the philosophy at many sites. this group has a decent balance over all which is why I consider it one of the best around and come here actually.

LOL of course whats the old saying about any group that would have me as a member :ponder actually run RUN RUN as fast as you can!!!!!!

HOMO SUM HUMANI A ME NIHIL ALIENUM PUTO
#42071
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kol Drake, Jax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Kol Drake
  • Kol Drake's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Faculty
  • Faculty
  • koldrake55@yahoo.com
  • Posts: 4193
  • Thank you received: 1911

Kol Drake replied the topic: Is it ok to not want to do Energy Work?

In the martial arts and other practices where centering, balance, mindfulness and meditation are involved, the caution is to not be sidetracked by the 'secondary effects' -- suddenly finding you have those odd 'psychic powers' springing up. The master(s) feel that that is a distraction from the 'real work' which was/is the martial art.

No matter what you 'do', those 'odd powers' are going to rise up. And then you are going to have to decide what to 'do' with them or totally ignore them -- which means blocking off a portion of yourself -- which is not a healthy condition either.

Does not wanting to be a healer make you NOT a Jedi?
No. Folks can 'be' whatever they feel drawn to -- Jedi Mage, Jedi Counselor, Jedi Diplomat, Jedi Ballbuster.... whatever.

But, as with any training, knowing 'enough to know better' can come in handy -- such as how to dress a wound or make a splint or helping combat hypothermia, etc. At least taking the 'fundamentals' allows you to be more aware when 'those odd powers' start popping up when you are in the middle of a concert presentation which 'moved the house'; or when you need to add a touch of invigorating energy to a performance even though you are feeling dog tired.
#42077
The following user(s) said Thank You: Memnoich

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Memnoich
  • Memnoich's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • To walk the path, is to look for the truth.
  • Posts: 834
  • Thank you received: 251

Memnoich replied the topic: Is it ok to not want to do Energy Work?

I can say from experience that I thought I believed Psychic powers existed, until I actually experienced them and realized that there is a difference between "believing" and knowing. When I believed, I thought I had no doubts about it, it wasn't until an actual episode of Telepathy that I realized, that as much as I thought I believed there was still doubt lingering, the doubt was because I was taking another's word that it was real. Unfortunately, until you experience it, you will continue to "Believe" and doubt, this is where you sit now. I however, agree with Brandel, practicing the Force is not the goal, bettering yourself is. Does the "Force" make you a Jedi? that is your own personal belief, but I can say that without a connection to the Force, I don't feel that you are a Jedi. Just as following a philosophy doesn't necessarily make you religious, you can follow the Philosophy of the Jedi, but without trying to learn about the Force, or energy flow, what then makes you a Jedi? Currently, I know we can't jump tall buildings, wield a lightsaber, or move objects with our mind, but without attempting to learn how are we then Jedi? because we passed some course's and Earned a rank?

I don't think I will ever reach the level that I would consider myself a Jedi Knight or Master, at best Jedi is where I will stay, and why there, because my idea of a Jedi is what we are working towards. Not the one exactly in Fictions, but somewhere close, I know there are more things locked away in our minds then we yet access, and I am working towards that. So under the fact that I am working towards that goal, do I call myself Jedi, but if I don't want to do something that is part of what I envision to be part of being a Jedi, then how can I call myself that? In the end, it matters not what other choose to call you, it matters what you see yourself as. By the question itself, you see a Jedi as having a relationship with the Force, working with Energy in some way. If you don't follow through with that Ideal, then you are trying to shape the ideal to match you, instead of trying to take the shape of your Ideal.

.oO Memnoich Oo.
"Do or do not, there is no try" ~Yoda
"Shared pain is lessened, shared joy increased." ~Spider Robinson


Dojo
Temple
Dream Log
#42248
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kol Drake, Jax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 40
  • Thank you received: 17

Jomela replied the topic: Is it ok to not want to do Energy Work?

Connor--
Where does the music come from?
Whether you "only" play it or whether you also write it, it comes from somewhere. Sometimes the access is harder than at other times; sometimes it taps you on the shoulder and says NOW! Sometimes the access is gentle and playful; sometimes demanding; sometimes seemingly non-existent. But it's always there. You know this if you've ever been awakened in the middle of the night by a melody that just won't leave you alone. This is your energy. This is your perception of the Force; your meditation. Music probably won't physically move objects (unless you crank it up to "12") but it does move people emotionally and it does heal. Jedi Musician counts!

"The Jedi is the crystal of the Force; the heart is the crystal of the Jedi."
#42311
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kol Drake

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.125 seconds