Array (  => stdClass Object ( [ID] => 9645 [post_author] => 3589 [post_date] => 2015-09-01 23:52:39 [post_date_gmt] => 2015-09-01 23:52:39 [post_content] => CAPTION: Fossil Hominid Skull Display, Museum of Osteology, in Oklahoma City, OK. It may be a truism that when we are committed to something, we tend to work everything else around it. This would hold for personal as well as public strategy. We all do it—to some extent. And that is fine. Unless... unless there’s something amiss with the premise itself. So let’s cut to the chase. Let’s look at the premise, taken for granted by those who subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, the premise that man “evolved” and that he did so in one particular place. Called monogenism, this is the earmark of Darwinism past and present; it holds that that place was Africa. • That mankind is found on other continents only because groups of humans moved out of Africa to populate the world. • That the most recent of those migrations (apart from the one to Oceania) was to the Americas—otherwise virgin land until some 15 or 20 thousand years ago. • That these future American Indians crossed the Bering Strait from Siberia. These are the premises of Darwinian monogenism. Everything must conform to it, follow suit. None of the world’s people, accordingly, are actually aboriginal to their home. Only Africans. Even the Australian aborigines, theory insists, came originally from Africa, perhaps 60,000 years ago. We’re all made-over Africans—supposedly. Which brings us to the first little problem: Since our ultimate forefathers were Africans, we must—if the theory is to be upheld—have acquired other racial traits—whether Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Australoid, etc.—by mutating into those types; i.e., by changing through the alleged process of natural selection. But we have a problem right here because, given the evolutionary timetable, there just wasn’t enough time after leaving Africa to do all that evolving. Stripped of certain ad hoc manipulations (like “punk eek”, see below), Darwinian evolution requires very large blocks of time, many millions of years. The 50,000- or 80,000- or even 100,000-year window for changing, say from black to white, doesn’t even come close. If early man evolved only in Africa, what are the actual facts that support this premise? The out-of-Africa doctrine, though floated for decades if not centuries, did not become an idée fixe until less than thirty years ago. In fact, before then, there was a vague consensus among scholars that the first humans came out of Asia, that Adam and Eve were brought forth somewhere in the dim East. And yes, there are hominid remains in China (Hubei and Guangxi provinces) and other parts of the Orient. Homo erectus, even australopithecine traits, has been recognized in fossil specimens as far afield as Micronesia (Palau Man) and Australia (Kow Swamp Man). But those facts along with that entire line of inquiry went down the memory hole once “African Eve” (“mitochondrial Eve”) became de rigueur in the late 1980s. Everything is made to fit the favored theory, presented quite seriously as unassailable fact by theorists who are not above calling their opponents “fruitcakes” or outright frauds. Of course, that’s where the research money is—the favored theory. That’s where the promotion is—in both senses of the term. That’s where the books and journals and jobs and lecture tours and awards and TV shows and even the fame and fortune are. But as a result, it has become hard to find information on early hominids in non-African locations. It is buried. But it is there. Take America, for example. In his book, Forgotten Worlds (Inner Traditions, 2012, p. 162), my colleague Patrick Chouinard notes “examples of people who shouldn’t be in pre-Columbian America but seem to creep from the undergrowth to stun the world… Belief in Asian migration across the Bering Strait has reached almost biblical proportions. It is a story that most archeologists… are trained to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. But why?” The answer to that question is—because the premise demands it; monogenism cannot survive unless it can be proven that everyone (except Africans, of course) migrated into their present lands. But there is an alternative, called polygenism (in the last several decades it has also been known as the “multiregional” approach). There is no ax to grind here, no premise to prove; the data simply suggests that man arose independently in different parts of the earth. Not just Africa. The greatest minds of twentieth century anthropology were polygenists: Roland Dixon, Franz Weidenreich, Carleton Coon. But then a weird drama was staged by their enemies, who feared that polygenism—if allowed to go any further—would eventually bring down the (monogenic) House of Darwin. So they devised a most ingenious tack: make polygenism politically incorrect! The scheme met with success, in a gambit that twisted the facts of independent origin, ultimately accusing the polygenist of giving too much credit to the early race of Caucasians. This, argued the accusers, opened the door to an unseemly Eurocentric bias and white supremacy. Definitely a no-no. But it was all a great ruse, a clever trick to upstage those who fell outside of the paradigm, the classic mold, and the evolutionary mold. (Incidentally, academicians are still pulling the race card in underhanded ways, in order to trounce alternative thinking; for example, writings about a lost race of whites in the South Seas on the ancient land of Mu are “pseudoscience” and “rubbish” according to Professor Patrick Nunn (Vanished Islands and Hidden Continents in the Pacific, University of Hawaii Press, 2009, p. 85) who denounces their “racist implications… [so] abhorrent to right-thinking people.” Likewise was the announcer of Washington State’s 9,000-year-old semi-Caucasoid Kennewick Man accused of inciting “a racist rampage.”) But I digress. The point is that no lie lasts forever. No sly tactics—like this bigot-baiting—will distract us for very long; for we are getting closer all the time to a world audience that hungers for the truth—and sees through agenda. In the course of researching and writing three books on ancient mysteries, I came across a serious blow to that agenda. One of those “givens” in today’s paleo-anthropology is that the people who migrated from Siberia into the New World less than 20,000 years ago were of the modern type (i.e., homo sapiens). However, the record indicates otherwise: earlier types of hominids were all over the Americas. This challenges not only Bering Strait dogma, but also Afro-centrist gospel. No wonder we don’t hear about it. So I must ask: How can the standard model, which is taught in every textbook and at every major university, explain 42,000-year-old crude chopping tools in America? (George Stuart, Discovering Man’s Past in the Americas, National Geographic Society, 1973, p. 36). Stone tools of a similar (or even older) date have been uncovered in South Carolina, west-central Illinois, and Sheguiandah, Ontario (Martinez, The Mysterious Origins of Hybrid Man, Bear & Co., 2013, p. 500). Fist hatchets (the hand ax typical of Neanderthal Man) have been unearthed in Abilene, Texas, along with dolichocephalic skulls (long-headed), which is irreconcilable with the brachycephalic skulls (round-headed) belonging to the Mongoloid people who, out of Siberia, became the supposed founders of America. Texas also gave us fossil men with “visor” brows (Harold S. Gladwin, Out of Asia, McGraw-Hill, 1947, p. 59). That massive brow ridge is characteristic of the primordial, pre-sapiens races. Even older than Neanderthal is the hominid known as Homo erectus (or pithecanthropus); his toolkit, of the type called Acheulean, has been found in the Catskill Mountains (New York State) and dated 70,000 BP (Arthur Keith, Ancient Types of Man, Harper & Brothers, 1911, p. 484). I should mention that all these citations come from books published before the 1980s, which is to say, before African Eve became the darling of anthropology, curtailing any mention of hominids in other parts of the world. If 70,000 BP sounds over the top for an American date, let us note that “artifacts left by early man in the Americas [up to] 70,000 years ago are now becoming plentiful … Many ancient sites yield only stone tools” (Jeffrey Goodman, The Genesis Mystery, Times Books, 1983, p. 214-5). Let me also refer Atlantis Rising aficionados to your Reader Forum, where one correspondent wrote in about Dinosaur State Park near Glen Rose, Texas (Daniel Porter, “Happisburg Footprints,” AR #108. p. 6), the same state where those Neanderthal axes were found. Here, human and dinosaur petrified footprints were found side-by-side in the mudflats of the Palaxcy River. Whatever the true date of those footprints, the evidence suggests that part of the human race occupied America a very long time ago. The same correspondent went on to report that the Smithsonian came down to Glen Rose and bought out the footprints. After this, a person referred to as Dr. Baugh traveled to the Smithsonian to look at the display, only to find out they denied ever having the footprints. Fortunately, similar evidence is available in Arizona (at Lee Canyon). Chipped in the rock are ancient pictograms including one of an “animal quite evidently intended to represent a dinosaur.” Another showed an elephant attacking a man. “The elephant in America dates back at least 30,000 years. The dinosaur belongs to an even earlier tropical era” (Richard Dewhurst, The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America, Bear & Co., 2014, 103-4). But we are not done with the Southwest and its hoary past. Here, too, are traces of cannibalistic groups, for example, at a pre-Anasazi site that yielded bones with telltale cut-marks and later, legends of man-eating giants. Might they be the same archaic types of the Southwest mentioned by Harold Gladwin (Men Out of Asia, McGraw-Hill, 1947, p. 89) and dated 27,000 BP? These hominids sported the erectoid prognathous profile (mid-face jutting out) and trademark beetle brow. (Pithecanthropines of great size, who worked out-sized stones, once lived also in Argentina; see below.) Cannibalistic giants appear in Navajo and Paiute legend. These beetle-browed specimens were also flatfooted, a trait associated with most pre-sapiens types. Continuing north, we have similar ancient footprints with no arch, in Nevada and Utah (Steiger, Mysteries of Time and Space, Dell Publishing, 1974, p. 20). Eastward, kindred discoveries have been made in Nebraska and Kansas. Early in the twentieth century, Nebraska skulls (found at Long Hill) proved to be low and receding with strongly marked supraorbital ridges. Typified by prognathism, overhanging brow, and sloping forehead, they looked all the day like classic Neanderthal specimens (William Corliss, Ancient Man: The Sourcebook Project, 1978, 672). Speaking of early man in Kansas: Some years ago The Kansas City Times reported on an apparent race of giants (two skeletons with huge bones) who once lived along the Missouri River. The frontal bone was very low, differing radically from any of the existing races of Indians; the forehead almost flat, receded back in a flat slope. The skull was not too different than the one collected in Central California in the 1970s by Charles Ostrander: thick brow ridge and small braincase (Virginia Steen-McIntyre, “The Enigmatic Ostrander Skull.” Pleistocene Coalition News (#9-10, 2010, p. 17). Very prognathous, too, was Minnesota Woman, dated 40,000 BP, with large teeth (bigger than Neanderthal’s) and long arms. She was, however, gracile and fairly large brained: 1,345 cc, suggesting a fine mixture of H. erectus with more modern people. Minnesota Woman, I am afraid, broke all the rules. For one thing, she appears to be a hybrid, not an “evolved,” race. For another, her 40,000-year-old age defies the supposed 20,000 BP date for the Bering crossing. Finally, her archaic dentition and arms tell us that Africa is not the only place to look for pre-sapiens types. Stephen J. Gould, who was a star of paleo-anthropology in the late twentieth century, was rather a contradiction in terms. On the one hand, he invented “punctuated equilibrium” (punk eek) in order to save Darwinism from observed rapid change, by positing a quick form of evolution—which, in my view, is actually an oxymoron (besides which, it is easier to explain rapid change by the simple fact of race mixing, cross-breeding). Be that as it may, Gould, on the other hand, casually presented evidence that contradicts the very premise of modern evolution; for he mentioned inhabitants of our own continent who possessed “shortened foreheads, prominent cheeks, deep-set eyes, and slightly apish nose” (Stephen J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, W.W. Norton, 1980, p. 165). Do the experts think we’re so dumb that we won’t notice these glaring contradictions? What we have seen in North America is no less conspicuous south of the border: If Minnesota Woman was prognathous but large-brained, quite similar hybrids have been discovered in Brazil at the Lagoa Santa caves. Prognathous and dolichocephalic, these earliest Brazilians, buried among the bones of extinct animals, had hardly any forehead, a wide space between the eyes, and thick skull walls. Yet their well-developed brain and chin marked them as “a primitive race mixed with other elements” (Roland Dixon, The Racial History of Man, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923, p. 458). Brazil’s Sumidouro cave specimens were also thick-skulled and large-browed. Significantly, the earliest fossil woman in Brazil was named Luzia, after one of Africa’s first hominids—the famous Lucy. At least 11,000 years old, Luzia looked nothing like the Paleo-Indians. Thinking (or imagining) that her features had the cast of Australia’s aborigines, theorists then went on a wild goose chase, searching for the migration route taken by Luzia’s people from Australia to America. But bogus migrations are not the answer to this puzzle. As Chouinard (p. 164) concludes, it is more likely that “these races, found in North and South America, represent an earlier stage in American evolution… [They] speak for polygenism.” Another marvelous hybrid, this one discovered in Patagonia and called Miramar Man, combined the sloping forehead and ultra-dolichocephaly of the most archaic hominids, with the smooth brow, good chin, and large brain (1450 cc) of Homo sapiens. This early Argentinean hybrid, called Homo pampaeus, caused quite a stir a hundred years ago. Alarmed by reports of hominid findings in Argentina, the Smithsonian sent their man down to examine the evidence. Observing the sapiens traits and shamelessly ignoring the archaic ones, the Smithsonian, with a sigh of relief, declared the case a false alarm. But the region was full of fossil men whose anatomical features were a perfect blend of modern and archaic. A controversial scholar named Florentino Ameghino was the polymath paleontologist who brought H. pampaeus to the light of day. The creature, he thought, not only possessed “a simian peculiarity of skull,” but also his crude stone tools at Monte Hermoso were at the erectoid level. Also screaming pithecanthropus was Argentina’s Baradero skeleton, with its long arms reaching to the knees. Homo sinemento, in the same region, was very prognathous and dolichocephalic, had no chin, yet he possessed an almost modern dental arch and gracile build—an apparent and very early blend of anatomically modern humans and pithecanthropines. The House of Darwin, thought to be the winning team, has many adherents. But built on a weak foundation, we will, in the years to come, watch it all fall down, more like a house of cards than an authentic theory of man. Susan Martinez, Ph.D., earned her doctorate in anthropology at Columbia University, where she also served as lecturer in ethnolinguistics. She is author of The Mysterious Origins of Hybrid Man, and many other books. [post_title] => Hominids & Humbug [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => hominids-humbug [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2015-07-31 23:55:22 [post_modified_gmt] => 2015-07-31 23:55:22 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://atlantisrisingmagazine.com/?p=9645 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )  => stdClass Object ( [ID] => 9639 [post_author] => 3589 [post_date] => 2015-09-01 23:46:13 [post_date_gmt] => 2015-09-01 23:46:13 [post_content] =>
CAPTION: John Hyatt’s photograph
In the spring of 2014 John Hyatt, a lecturer with Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, published a series of photos of small winged creatures that look like very small flying people or fairies. Hyatt said he was taking photos through the trees at sunset, trying to capture fast moving insects. The photos weren’t doctored in any way other than enlarging the size and the resolution of the images. These “Rossendale Fairies,” similar to the famous Cottingley fairy photos taken in Yorkshire in 1917, have excited many believers and have been widely ridiculed as well by skeptics.
In an interview in International Business Times, Hyatt said, “I am an artist. These are honest photographs with no trickery. Fairies certainly exist in art and within culture and, for those that believe and those that disbelieve, they act on many people’s decisions and ways of life. Are they materially real? I have merely placed some interesting evidence before the public. Let the people decide. I never claimed to prove anything but simply to offer gifts of great beauty and interest to the people of the world.”
Many have already decided one way or the other. Hyatt said that since posting his photos people from around the world have thanked him on behalf of their children and themselves. They’ve also sent photos and their own stories of encounters with fairies. If you search for “fairy” or “elemental” online, you can find many sites showing images in which the faces and bodies of “spirits” are visible in plants, water, trees, and other natural forms. Of course, skeptics have had a field day, too, quickly pointing out that the photos could simply be of midges or another small flying insect. Plus, there’s the fact that no one has ever found any material evidence of fairies. Yet, belief in fairies and other nature spirits is very high all across the world and has been for a very long time.
The folklore of the Persians, Mongolians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, and Egyptians all contain accounts of such nature spirits. The Celtic druids had tree spirits that inhabited sacred groves and special trees. The Teutonic tribes had their gnomes and dwarves. There are also many indigenous cultures with animistic beliefs about the world who experience spirits inhabiting all forms of nature. With the rise of Christianity worldwide, these kinds of beliefs were labeled “primitive” or “superstitious.” Anyone who publicly held such beliefs might have risked persecution for their association with such “demonic” forces. For 1500 years the belief in these kinds of creatures in the West continued, though was kept more private. Natural healers, who were labeled as witches, gypsies and alchemists, continued to interact with them in their hidden practices.
In the sixteenth century, Paracelsus revived interest with his fairy book, Liber de Nymphis, sylphis, pygmaieis et salamandris et de caeteris spiritibus, where he describes “creatures that are outside the cognizance of the light of nature.” In his book he catalogued beings belonging to the four elements: Gnomes, of the earth; Undines, of the water; Sylphs, of the air; and Salamanders, of the fire. These “divine objects,” though generally invisible, were believed to be beings between creatures and spirits, corporal and ethereal.
Later in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as the power of the church declined and the study of science increased, there was a resurgence of belief in fairies, spirits, and other mystical forces. At the turn of the twentieth century, the spiritualist movement and the Theosophists were applying scientific methodologies to the realms of spirit, subtle energies, and consciousness. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the author of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, was a spiritualist and was drawn into the mystery of the Cottingley fairies. In his 1922 book, The Coming of the Fairies, he said, “We see objects within the limits which make up our color spectrum, with infinite vibrations, unused by us, on either side of them. If we could conceive a race of beings which were constructed in material which threw out shorter or longer vibrations, they would be invisible unless we could tune ourselves up or tone them down... there is nothing scientifically impossible, so far as I can see, in some people seeing that which is invisible to others.”
In the 1890’s, Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater took their scientific investigation into the invisible and impossible. They conducted a whole series of investigations into the structure of the physical elements, such as uranium and hydrogen. Using what they called an ‘ajnic microscope,’ a kind of internal, mental focusing tool, they were able to perceive and draw the molecular and submolecular structures of these elements, which they published in the book Occult Chemistry in 1895. Many of their illustrations showed previously unknown isotopes and specific numbers of quarks in elements, information thathttp://viagra7-pharmacycanada.com/viagra-brand.htmlflagylpharmacy-genericgeneric supraxgeneric celebrexlexapro dosagewasn’t confirmed by science until the 1970’s.
In the early 1920’s Major Geoffrey Hodson was studying, describing and publishing his insights into elemental spirits in the books Faeries at Work and at Play and The Kingdom of Faerie. Peter Tompkins, who popularized the possibility of the sentience of plants in the 1970s, suggested in his book The Secret Life of Nature that since the work by Annie and Charles in Occult Chemistry has proved to be so highly accurate, Hodson’s work on elementals and fairies should be considered more seriously.
At this time, Hodson was a member of the Theosophical Society. He was also a student of Buddhism, a practitioner of yoga, and a highly skilled clairvoyant. He initially thought fairies were products of people’s imagination, yet an experience he had changed that. One time he saw his dog stare fixedly into space. He was curious, so he “quickened his clairvoyant faculty by the practice of Yoga” and for the first time had a vision of “traditional forms of brownies, elves, fairies and the like” dancing around in his living room.
Hodson was brought in to investigate the Cottingley fairies after the photos taken by Elsie Wright and Frances Griffiths created a public stir. For many years there has been intense debate as to the validity of the five photos taken by these two girls. Hodson spent time with Elsie and Frances at their home in rural England and concluded that the girls were clairvoyant themselves. He also believed that the girls combined “prepubescent aura” helped to enable the fairy images to be captured on film. Although the debate on the validity of these photos raged for some 60 years, both adult women admitted near the end of their lives that the photos were staged with cardboard cutouts. However, Frances claimed the fifth photo in the series was genuine. Her daughter said that Frances believed until her death that fairies were real.
After investigating the young girls, Hodson continued his clairvoyant explorations around the English countryside, researching elemental spirits. He elaborated on Paracelsus’ descriptions, dividing nature spirits into four main categories according to their dominant element—earth, water, air, or fire. He pointed out, though, that there were also innumerable overlapping species. He believed that none of these spirits had solid bodies, since they lived on the astral plane. They were able to materialize more defined shapes, though, that could be seen by people with “etheric” or “astral” sight, such as Elsie and Frances, and only rarely could be captured on film.
He described in detail fairies, brownies, elves, gnomes, and mannikins, the last of which appeared to be male forms of these creatures that were a blend of several different types. He observed these varied creatures in all the elements; in the air, in amongst plants, in rock faces, and in the earth, living beneath the bark of trees and even in flowing water or in the crashing of waves. He suggested that their life appears to revolve around the expression of three fundamental processes in Nature: absorption, assimilation, and discharge.
Around the turn of the twentieth century, science was becoming more polarized as to what was “true” science and what was “pseudoscience.” Since all of the clairvoyant explorations of the Theosophists couldn’t be replicated by the skeptical or seen by ordinary people, they were more commonly written off as delusion. While the psychologists and the mystics continued studying the occult, mental worlds, mainstream science became more and more concerned with tangibles and essentially relegated any theory of elementals or fairies to childish imagination.
Since then, materialistic science has made tremendous progress defining the energies and structures at submolecular levels. Intangible energies that can’t be seen by the eye, can’t be heard or felt—at least in normal conditions—are commonly accepted to be facts of nature. One would think this would make faeries more acceptable. The thread, though, throughout this scientific progress is that there is no “life,” “will,” or “consciousness” in natural forces; though with the deeper understanding of quantum physics, with entanglement and the observer effect, mainstream scientists are begrudgingly acknowledging that consciousness has some role to play in the material world.
At the cutting edge of science, there are now multiple theories postulating dark matter and alternate dimensions in order to more fully explain the physical world that we live in. Dark matter could correlate to the etheric or astral dimensions perceived by the mystics. Of course, there’s still an implicit assumption in science that the consciousness of a human being couldn’t access these aspects of reality, or that there is any kind of consciousness that could exist in these subtle energies. On the other hand, many philosophers and some physicists believe that consciousness couldn’t possibly be an emergent property of the human brain and must therefore be a fundamental part of the universe.
Regardless of whether or not the scientists believe in nature spirits, personal experiences with elves, devas, and other spirits continue to occur. Perhaps one of the best-known examples is the Findhorn community in Scotland. Founded in the late 1960s, this community became famous for the cooperation between the gardeners and the spirits of the plants. Dorothy MacLean, one of the founders, discovered she could intuitively contact the “angels” or “devas” of the plants. MacLean realized these weren’t the spirits of individual plants but, rather, the ‘overlighting’ beings, which were the consciousness holding the archetypal design of each species. These beings gave her instructions for how to care for the plants, which resulted in the 40-lb. cabbages that captured the world’s attention. The Findhorn community is still active and has grown into a spiritual center and education hub. They teach that the forces of nature are something to be reached out to and that we can harmonize with those essences.
MacLean’s descriptions of a species-being resonates with Rupert Sheldrake’s concept of morphogenetic fields. This is another place where mainstream science is moving towards the realms of the mystics. Sheldrake’s proposal suggests that there are nonlocal information fields that guide the development of biological systems. These fields have no physical basis and are held in some kind of alternate dimension to the physical. The step yet to be proposed would allow for some kind of consciousness we could interact with in these morphogenetic fields. If any of the subtle energies or fields that western science does recognize were found to have an aspect of consciousness, then science would interact with the spirits of the natural world again.
One person’s personal vision of an elf spirit entwined with the life force of a tree, as Hodson described in his journals, might be an observation of how these fundamental energies in nature manifest. Since these perceptions occur in concert with a meditative or altered state in the individual, it would make sense that the images would be informed by the beliefs held in the consciousness of the individual. MacLean described initially seeing angels and later expanded her awareness to something even larger, which she termed a “deva.” If the person observing had no belief in the possibility of consciousness in these energies, then they might not perceive anything other than an aesthetically pleasing tree.
There is also a tendency for the mind to see familiar shapes in nature. Eyes, faces, and animal figures can easily be seen in the clouds. It’s easy to write these off as creative imagination. Yet, in this context one shouldn’t rule out that a person might be perceiving some other form of energy that may have qualities of consciousness associated with it. Again, I may see it as an angel, and that is how my consciousness processes what I’m experiencing. The essential nature of this spirit may be something wholly different, that can’t be apprehended easily by the mind.
Perhaps the forms we see in nature feel real because at the same time we’re processing the visual information, we are experiencing more complex information through our other senses. Since these subtle energies are all part of the overall experience of a place, they may all be an aspect of the spirit of this place. When one stands in amongst an old growth cedar or redwood forest, it’s hard to deny that there are subtle qualities to these spaces.
Throughout this article, we’ve focused on the western, scientific view, which can be myopic, not allowing for any alternate views. However, belief in the aliveness of the natural world, and human interconnection with it, is still very much a part of the animistic worldview of many indigenous peoples. One might say that to the degree a “primitive” culture hasn’t been hypnotized into the separation between mind and matter or between man and nature, they still experience the world they live in, with all it’s energies, elements, and alternate forms of consciousness, as alive and interconnected with humans.
In these cultures, it’s commonplace to engage with a nature spirit as part of a healing ritual, or to recognize that beautiful places in nature such as waterfalls, vistas, or a groves of trees are attractive to us because they are imbued with spirit. The “energy” that a westerner perceives has qualities of consciousness as part of its nature. At the quantum level, our consciousness does have an affect on matter, perhaps because matter has qualities of consciousness in it. Why wouldn’t animate matter also have an effect on human consciousness? Perhaps this wonder we have for fairies is an expression of a connection to nature that is much more alive than our materialistic culture wants us to believe.
With the growing appreciation for mindfulness practices and other meditative techniques, science is also rediscovering the value of state-changes in human consciousness. All that is meaningful does not take place in a narrow-focus, objective, and analytical state of mind that is so elevated by western science. Deep meaning, wonder, and truths can be perceived in other states of mind where one’s experience isn’t separate from the natural world. When we see the image of a face in the clouds, our minds are loosened a little with “creativity”—another trance state—that puts us in touch with deeper metaphoric and symbolic meaning. The face in the trees and the little fairies in Hyatt’s photos may be reaching out to us from the animate world in an attempt to reanimate our lives!
Patrick Marsolek is the director of Inner Workings Resources. He is the author of Transform Yourself: A Self-hypnosis Manual and A Joyful Intuition. See www.PatrickMarsolek.com for more information.[post_title] => Fairie Factors vs. Materialism [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => fairie-factors-vs-materialism [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2015-10-30 18:03:34 [post_modified_gmt] => 2015-10-30 18:03:34 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://atlantisrisingmagazine.com/?p=9639 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) )
© 2015 Atlantis Rising Magazine | WordPress design by TCWebsite
No part of this website or it's contents may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher.