Guarding Against the Impossible

spread_image

In Atlantis Rising #4 Jeane Manning’s cover story focused on “Impossible Inventions that Work.” From heavier-than­-air flight to free energy, she cited many examples of technological achievement which have already proven, and will continue to prove, that conventional wisdom is often wrong. The truth is that just because some people say some­thing is impossible doesn’t make it so. Nevertheless, unfortunately, declarations of “impossibility” are not without impact—affecting perhaps the very fabric of personal and collective reality. So, in mapping the parameters of person­al potential, it is important to consider where the line is drawn between what is believed possible and what is consid­ered impossible.

Some say, for instance, that life after death is ‘impossible’ and others that it is not; some believe material reality is all there is, for others that is ‘impossible’; some say free energy exists, but to others that too is ‘impossible’; etc. And even in this supposedly enlightened and politically correct age, the frontier between what is believed possible and im­possible remains potentially more explosive than ever. People might not be burned at the stake for rejecting the offi­cial dogma of the ruling church, but that does not mean the stakes are not still very high. Indeed, since our very souls may be on the line, they could not be higher.

When one makes up one’s mind that something is ‘impossible’ one is committing to certain limitations on reality (worshipping at a particular church, investing in a chosen venture), and whether realizing it consciously or not, de­fining (and limiting) one’s own domain—one’s very being, if you will. Any data which might challenge such deeply held assumptions thus becomes personally threatening and must be defended against (consciously or otherwise).

Indeed, if the principles now evident in quantum physics are to be taken seriously, the process may go much deep­er than is generally thought. When the resistance to considering notions deemed impossible is strong enough, might it not be much more than a simple reaction to existing reality? Might it not, instead, actually generate or create a re­ality—one which for that person is the ruling factor? In such an individual’s world couldn’t it be truly ‘impossible’ for certain phenomena to appear at all, prevented from doing so by his belief in their impossibility? A bird who thinks he can’t fly will never get off the ground even though others might easily see the given phenomena and recognize the self-imposed imprisonment of our hypothetical individual who could not see it and remains unconscious of its presence. The old saying comes to mind, “there are none so blind as those who will not see.”

Our point here, though, is that this may indeed be more than ordinary bullheadedness. Couldn’t the person sim­ply be protecting himself from the dangers represented by an unruly, if not unholy, world—exercising a crucial self-defense mechanism? For such people, even the physical rising of Atlantis with worldwide media coverage might not change many minds. Small wonder that the kind of changes, which some of us would like to see, may need to come about in a more evolutionary—rather than revolutionary—manner.

At a time when threats to personal integration, and even sanity, are intense and manifold, one cannot necessarily blame those who do what they must to keep their heads together, seeking to avoid, so to speak, going off the trolley, even if it means—to mix metaphors—burying their noggins in the sand.

It also remains true, though, that for the few who recognize the looming realities which go unseen and unheeded by the many, seeing the light imposes obligations which cannot be ignored whether the ostriches among us see it or not.

But, as has been said, maintaining an open mind does not require a hole in the head.

BY J. DOUGLAS KENYON

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*