subscribe to the RSS Feed

613818 visits since February 05, 2010

Friday, April 18, 2014

Irradiating Beings

Posted by Raul on February 22, 2013

xxxx-xx-xx  Irradiating Beings

 

 

Let’s try a crazy possibility for a moment. Let’s assume it is true to see what happen.

We can talk, we can scream, we can sing and we can do so many things to express ourselves to the surroundings, but we do tend to disregard our own irradiation.

Just like a wire in which we circulate an electric current will create a magnetic field around that we can measure, the same way we, being electric creatures, generate a field around us at all times while we are alive.

Our thoughts are electric currents traveling throughout our brain. The signal received by the brain to recognize pain when we hit our hand against the wall is an electric current. The signals sent by the brain to the muscles in our body to move an arm, walk, etc. are electric currents, and so on.

As long as those electric currents are running through our body, back and forth to our brain, we are alive. When we die, there are no more electric currents in the body. It becomes, well…a dead body! (Duh!)

So we generate a field around us that we cannot see or measure at this time, yet it does exist, and maybe that’s what some people claim to be able to see as the Aura…the shinning around a human being that reflects what’s in that person’s heart (feelings, intentions, etc.)

We can “perceive” that field, that irradiation from another person, and when that irradiation somehow synchronizes with ours we can feel a sort of “connection”, and at the other hand, when that irradiation differs from ours then we can feel a sort of “rejection”.

Now, since our thoughts, feelings and intentions are electric currents in our brains, and those thoughts, feelings and intentions alter our physical state (if we are mad our muscles tend to tense, and if we are happy our muscles tend to relax), then it’ll be logic that the irradiation we emit should vary according to the state of our thoughts, feelings and intentions, most probably creating a sort of different wavelength in the spectrum of our iradiation. The thoughts, feelings and intentions in our brain are the generators of the irradiation and our whole body becomes a sort of “amplifier” of that irradiation, which is continually modified according to the state of our mind.

So, if we have this irradiation at all times, and if this irradiation varies depending on what’s in our thoughts, feelings and intentions, then this irradiation should have a sort of “interaction” with the irradiation of another person when close to each other, just like the magnetic field of a wire influences the magnetic field of another wire when they are close to each other.

Seen from that perspective, and making comparisons with the interaction of the magnetic field projected by wires which have circulation of electric currents, we could then analyze the results of human interaction using analogies.

When two wires are set in the same position while having the same electric current, thus the same magnetic field, those magnetic fields add up to a higher intensity. If we go to an extreme and position the same way thousands of wires with the same current, we create a powerful magnetic field that can be used in an electric motor – Two people in the same mood and feelings tend to feed each other in the same direction. If we get together thousands of people in the same mood and feelings we can create a revolution! (Think of a charismatic leader).

When two wires are set in the opposite position while having the same electric current, thus the same magnetic field, those magnetic fields repel each other. If we have thousands of those wires set in different positions with the same electric current, we have a chaotic magnetic field. – Two people in the opposite mood and feelings tend to reject each other. Thousands of people in different moods and feelings create a grayish society of distrust. (Think of big cities with millions of inhabitants).

But going back to the basic concept, have you felt distrust for no reason when you first meet someone? Like when going to an office to get a signed document and even before talking to the person in charge, just by getting close to her desk you know you are not going to get anything with this person.

Or maybe feeling the opposite; trust without a logic reason when getting close to someone that you might have never seen before? Like for no reason feeling friendliness from someone standing at the bus stop; or the grocery store cashier that starts a conversation that you feel somehow happy to follow, even if you weren’t in the mood of talking before.

Maybe “love” in part is a sort of synchronization of the irradiating fields between two people, creating an attraction that cannot be explained, and sometimes even defy logic (obviously logic in this case is reasoning based in a society in the material world and its requirements – “He is not of your same background, how can you fall in love with him?”)

My favorite: When you call someone on the phone; you hear the ringing and wait for the person to answer, and when he/she does and just say “Hello”, sometimes you immediately know if that person is mad, happy, sleepy, etc. There’s no visual you can use to reach that idea and the sound of the voice is distorted by the electronic transformation of the sound into electric pulses and back to sound; so how can you know the mood the person is in? Has it happened to you? Maybe we can perceive the other’s person’s irradiation at distances.

Have you had a sudden feeling that something might have happened to a loved one, just to receive a phone call a couple of minutes later to inform you of a tragic event to that person? Or even just suddenly having a thought about that person for no reason, and then receiving the phone call to say hello, then learning in the conversation that the person just decided a moment ago: “I’m gonna call her!”?

Experts insist a crying baby gets calmed when hugged by his mother because he can hear her heart…something he knows very well after nine months. But why then there’s people who seems to have a “natural” ability to “connect” with babies? (I mention babies because they cannot talk and don’t have knowledge of how to communicate).

Seems to me we do have another way of communication and a way to “broadcast” ourselves by the irradiation of our personality (which is created by our thoughts, feelings and intentions). And logically we should be able to control our irradiation by controlling what we think, feel and do in our lives. In many doctrines a monk suppose to have a very shiny aura since his life is dedicated to service and compassion to others and harmony with nature.

I’m not an expert in the field, so cannot say this is the way it is, but after so many years roaming this planet observing people and their interactions, looks like a possibility. I do know that while at work usually I’m quiet and thinking this kind of weird thoughts, while other people around is thinking and talking about the latest music video or the party they are going next…I’m not a person they like to spend time with, even if I always smile and try to be kind to them. We definitely irradiate in different wavelengths!

What do you think? Do you believe we irradiate ourselves?

Raul

 

 

In Defense of Extraterrestrial Beings

Posted by Raul on December 27, 2010

 

    It is said that the most intelligent creature born in planet Earth is a human being. It is said that the main characteristic of a human being is its capability of feelings; love, hate, distrust, confusion, etc.

    Is it the capability of feelings proper and unique of human beings? Dogs can experience the same feelings at a lower degree, yet they aren’t considered humans.

    At the other hand, there are “humans” that, throughout history, have shown very little “humanity” by their actions towards other fellow humans.

    So what about extraterrestrial beings?  If they aren’t considered humans since they weren’t born on Earth, but somewhere else in the universe, does it means they are not considered capable of love? (Being love a human characteristic?).

     But if they have the capabilities of love (which they should have), then shouldn’t they be considered humans?  Unless the capability of love is not a characteristic proper of a human being, or should I say, an Earthling?

    In that case, feelings would not be the characteristic of being human, but just one of its properties.

    So then, should we greet an extraterrestrial being as a fellow human? Or should we consider ourselves as human or not, mostly depending on our own actions, and not just because we were born in this planet?

Hmmm…

Raul

Fascination as a Container (Guest Post)

Posted by Nacho on December 16, 2010

 

      Today I have the pleasure to have a guest poster at Alien Ghost!  Nacho Jordi, from Zerebria, has a very interesting topic for all of us to enjoy and think about.

      If you haven’t visited Nacho’s blog, please take the time to stop by and dig in his archives. His posts are always intelligent, funny, and with lots of very useful information, so you can have an eye opening experience, and mind blowing time.

      Now, without further ado, I leave the stage for Nacho.

 

         Fascination as a Container

            I saw them the other day while I was having a short walk. They were sat on a bench, and he was talking about i-phone models, I think. As for her, she dazzled me: her eyes, her body language, something in the seriousness of her silence… all of her as a whole was the living image of receptivity. She was fascinated, receiving all of that as one who receives the rain.

            I am a very enthusiastically kind of person, and I remember having received that kind of attention in several of my former girlfriends, now and then, generally in situations when I was rambling about books or music. And I hope that memory does not play tricks on me, but I think that, even while those moments were taking place, in spite of the ‘natural high’ that love always induces on you, I clearly perceived that the fascination I was granted with had very little to do with the particular contents I was producing. Instead of books, I could have been an obsessive stamp collector or a vegetarian die-hard fan for the case. What my girls liked, just like what that girl seemed to like in her i-phonic friend, was the spark of illusion, the beauty of fascination, the fact that something in this world of us can cause such a state in a human being.

            So there was a clear distinction between the object that created fascination, and the fascination itself. The first element, in all the cases I’ve seen, seemed to have a secondary role. I have a theory for that.

            I just cannot know, of course, but I’ve always had a feeling that men are more oriented to the ‘what’ of things, while women’s great specialty is the ‘how’. The easiest example at hand is their typical entertainments in popular culture for each of them:

            Men – Sports

            -”They won by (what?) 8 points yesterday’s match”

            -”Among (what?) the five first teams in the league”

            -”His average speed is (what?) 20% faster than its competitors”

             (Additionally, the ‘how’ is very feeble: Question: how does the coach feels about winning the match? Answer: OBVIOUSLY, he feels very happy, because they have worked a lot and it puts them in a good situation to face the finals, etc. Which is a very primitive, secondary, and previsible, set of feelings).

            Women – Gossip press

            -”He later declared that he was (how?) very sorry for his remarks”

            -”10 of the (how?) best/worst dressed celebrities”

            (Additionally, the ‘what’ is usually quite insignificant (to the desperation of men!): the ‘celebrities’ who elaborate their disappointment, who tell everything about their wedding or the birth of their child, etc, are very often, if you think it, a not-so-famous singer, an actress who has not done something worthwhile in three decades or so, the former fiancée of a former tennis player, who something of the kind).         

            Of course, I don’t claim to be an expert on the issue of genders. As my theory is mostly a hunch, I’m sure you can allege a ton of counter-examples if you want to. To make things even harder, biologically, gender is not binary; we cannot simply create the ‘how’ and ‘what’ tribes because, hormonally, we all human beings have a male and a female part; there are no pure categories in nature, but a continuum. As soon as you abandon Sesame Street-like simplifications, the issue of gender can take you very far… far beyond, indeed, than what is intended in the dimensions of a blog post! But precisely because it is an issue with such a richness and complexity, I think it is necessary that we abandon clichés about it as soon as possible and start to explore and discuss it with more naturality. So this is my humble contribution to the matter, with my acknowledgement to Raul for allowing me to publish in his terrific blog.

What do you think?

——————————–

Nacho Jordi is a polymath mostly (but not exclusively) focused on writing, music, psychology, spirituality beyond cliché and personal productivity. He works as a translator in Madrid (Spain). He is the author of the Zerebria blog, where he offers tips and hints for personal development and conscious living, besides all kind of contemporary musings.

——————————–

Related Posts with Thumbnails