It took me awhile to put together my thoughts to correctly write this piece as a response to what I read.
Although the making miracles proposition is stuffed with nonsense and hocus-pocus ideas attacking the reader from different angles and directions, it’s even hard to bite it in a correct way and proper manner to respond. The more I come back to this article
and read it back again, the more I find this article talking to hear herself talk over and over again about significant nothing.
I am not sure what part of responsibility for the contents of a written (and published) article is on your side but some of you must have read it and gave your consent to publish it. This article not only made my blood boiling but also (after some time now) made me think how blind the reading audience is and why people still don’t ask simple questions when looking for simple answers. Here’s why…
When looking at the article from wider perspective, it looks as though its content was sucked out of a thumb while sipping Sunday morning coffee to its very bottom.
I have no idea why Lynn Woodland creates an impression on a reader that “making miracles” (whatever it means in her language) is something that has features of some kind of science when quoting the Principle of Complementarity
, mentioning about connecting us to the Field
(what kind of “Field”, by the way…and why it’s written with capital “F”?), using catchy phrases like “leap” in time and space rather than a linear, mechanical process
, “particle” consciousness rather than “wave” consciousness
or using the most beloved expression in the New Age jargon “quantum leap”
in every possible context with the most obscure explanation, or very often none at all. Does Lynn Woodland know what the expression of “quantum” really means?
The icing on the cake of this article that blew my two socks off comes right at the beginning of it by reading, “Taken out of the realm of science and applied to daily life, these new laws of physics…”
. Let me make a comment about it – Lynn Woodland claims that making miracle laws are the new laws of physics but they are still to be excluded from the realm of science where the physics has ruled in sciences from perhaps the Eratosthenes times, if not earlier scholars. So either they are taken out of science or stay in the realm of science when being promoted to the similar rank of what the physics has?
This is the best example of contradiction and suggests that the author of this article has not been at her right mind with completely crooked logic and a very serious lack of education at school on secondary level.
The 3rd paragraph of the article starts from reflections about addictions which don’t fit to any conceivable idea of miracle making. It seems it was copied and pasted from someone else’s (probably similar) elaborates. It’s not only this part that seems borrowed; there are other parts loosely connected to the subject matter.
Then it comes another paragraph about imagination in the service of love with the above mentioned and mysterious “connection to the Field” that oozes everything to the point of the most perfect pseudo-intellectual blabber one can ever encounter in modern article writing.
I need to know why flexible thinking and unlearning everything we think we know for certain is such a crucial ingredient in miracle making
when our vehicle is coming to the busy intersection with the traffic lights changing from green to red and us thinking about unlearning “stop” and applying the complementary rule “go”, in a vehicle full of people on a long weekend trip, with expected joy and self-responsibility waiting for a sure miracle to happen.
I wish to also know the explanation of the Newtonian paradigm of separateness and randomness, quantum model of connectedness
and why miracles happen in natural accordance with spiritual law
and why now this law is spiritual as oppose to the above mentioned “new law of physics” when these two are still poles apart, I presume...
Does Lynn Woodland know what it really takes and what’s the route for something first observed or occurred to become a law? Does she have a slightest idea of how the laws are created? And what, the heck, is this spiritual law that the miracles happen in natural accordance with? How does this law sound?, who first described it? And how it’s verified by anybody in everyday practice?
I would also like to know why “our power to affect the world around us through our conscious intent expands in direct correlation with our willingness to recognize the connection between our inner state and outer reality, barring nothing, the pleasant and the unpleasant
”, what kind of power it is, how our conscious intent expands and what final outcome it has after this all action. There’s too much metaphysics interacted with pseudo-science with obviously unproven effects of supposed miracle making (whatever it means).
There’s one point I really do agree with Lynn Woodland when she says, “Taken to extreme, this becomes delusional “magical thinking” and a sign of deteriorating mental health”
although I took a perfect liberty to pull this very quotation out of context.
This is exactly what this whole idea of New Age (with miracle making as a sub-folder) has to offer to all of those who don’t ask question. Magical words and gibberish expressions taken from out of this earth, spiced up with this “quantum” phrase that can be used numerous times to make the very poor writing sound very “scientific” in its sense and quasi-intellectual ideas for some to follow and (maybe…, but how?) to apply in life.
Then it comes the very obscure paragraph on blame, shame and self-responsibility which, as other parts of the article, are loosely related to the general idea of miracle making, if any. Whatever sentence you read it defies logic and reasoning.
I am giving up, I am disappointed, I am short of more words now. I denounce this whole unproven idea of miracle making stuffed with pseudo-scientific jargon of New Age – at the end of the day confusing, disorienting, baseless and totally fabricated to impress any reader who blindly reads bombastic vocabulary without asking questions.
The whole article is about nothing, has no practical significance and purely untrue.
It’s simply cotton candy for simple minds.