E not to be only in the focus of livened up beings, also let us think about the rock in its interaction with other inanimate beings. Rain leaves the humid rock. what it wants to say this? How if of necessarily the interaction of water molecules with molecules of the rock? In a ventania of dust, some grains would be adhered tenuamente to the rock, while others would be shocked and fallen in the soil. That type of interactions is being established there? A draft probably is turned aside in the meeting with the rock, but who guarantees that some particle of this air did not interact and if it adhered to the rock? Or, in contrast, it corroded the rock lightly? if we launched another rock against this? A small rock, let us say. It beats and comes back stops backwards. What in fact she occurred? thus successively with each objects that we choose.
Then, we speak of some forms of interactions, some perspectives on this rock: of the man, of the presumption beyond-do-man differentiated for genetic engineering or technological resources, of the terrestrial extra presumption, the camel, the snake, the water, the dust, air and another rock. Which of these withholds the look most correct? The absolute perspective? I hear somebody to whisper: ' ' none of these, God only knows verdade' '. All good, if this God exists, as it sees the rock? It is solid for It; she lasts, rough? Or so rarefied how much air? when a dust particle interacts with the rock, this is less real, less true, of what when this God interacts with the rock? When a snake if crawls on it, or when a man sits down on the same one, would be this a mere illusion ahead of the true interaction with the rock that this God can establish? If to think that the man can know everything on an earthworm, and still to watch it continuously through cameras and sensors, that is, the man can be onipotente, onisciente and onipresente ahead of an earthworm, exactly thus the interaction of the earthworm with the rock she is less true of what of the man with the same one? Who to want to believe? to understand? , it will perceive that everything depends on the perspective, or, if to prefer other terms, of the interpretation, the interaction.
I'm not saying that this decision is not a solution. It helps to keep believers the moral and mental balance in our complex world. But the question arises: why should people who have strong faith in creation, pay attention to scientific issues in which whatsoever knowledge? They fear that if successful resolution of the problem the origin of life shrink the area of their faith, as, for example, previously had to abandon the notion of firmament? But the world is so wonderful and mysterious, and science is still so far from disclosing all the secrets that room for faith will suffice for many generations. If this is indeed faith, not worship of the attributes wherewith and are religious scriptures. Of course, if biology successfully solve the problem of nucleation life, with the interpretation of sacred texts, there are problems. By then the Bible must be treated merely as a monument of culture, a source of spirituality, not as a scientific guide. Which, of course, for the civilized man is quite naturally.
It is understandable why a physicist, not able to resolve the problems arising, for example, when creating a unified field theory, simply recognized in his scientific failure. And what he has done? The Bible says nothing about the strengths and weaknesses interactions of quarks and gravitons. In biology, the situation is different. Faced with the inability to resolve the problem of biological evolution, you can always retreat to the spare position – good decision has already been proposed and painted a few millennia ago. And the retreat is not the nature of deposit products and can be made without prejudice to pride. And for giving weight to his belief in creation, of course, you must bring it to the max number odnovertsev. The truth of the scientific results hardly depend on the number of people, they share and understand. Another matter of religion – there is the weight of truth depends on the number who believe in it.
What good is belief, shared by several people. And it's probably another reason why so many creationists are paying attention to the active promotion of their position. Belief in the creation of life in general does not require any proof. Itself the notion of "prove faith" sounds blasphemous. Faith does not need props – it is self-sufficient. If it is, of course, a belief in something absolute, supreme, the belief in a single top of world harmony, rather than a belief in a specific number of days whom the world was created, and the size of the ark, which saved all living in the flood. As it is impossible to rationalize, to prove faith, and it is impossible to either prove or justify relying on faith. Or, conversely, can say that faith derives its strength from absolutely everything, and prove on the basis of faith can be everything. Enough to believe it. Believe that the Creator wanted it (and it really can only believe, because no mortal will argue that he can explain an act of the Creator, are logically lead them out of any reason). So if we're talking about real scientists, and true believers, among them there can be no conflicts. They exist in different, non-overlapping spheres. Some people on all possible questions give one absolute answer. Others try to find not absolute, but verifiable answers to some private matters.
It is known that the inner self of man, in many cases determines their behavior, emotions, desires and aspirations, as director of human personality. But learning how to manage and change their inner self? There is many psycho, which allow a greater or lesser extent a person to work on yourself through your subconscious mind, and one of those psycho is hypnosis. Hypnosis can be defined as a specific state of consciousness Rights (as amended by the state, etc.), being in which man is capable of suppressing the critical perception of the world and our own consciousness, which allows a person to "look within", and thus connect to the Inland I – subconsciously. Hear other arguments on the topic with Assurant Health. In wanting to learn hypnosis, the question is "where you can learn hypnosis?" There are lots of offers of training hypnosis: hypnosis courses, hypnosis school, hypnosis centers, psychological centers and even the Academy of hypnosis, but it always promises to teach hypnotic techniques are justified? Get a true statement of fact in teaching hypnosis and the use of hypnosis in life, it would be correct in specialists with medical education. People who have studied hypnosis in health care and hold hypnosis not only as a kind of "magic", but also consider and apply it from a medical point of view. For example, many people seek care from a psychologist or therapist who owns hypnosis for solutions of some of life's problems. Checking article sources yields Iridology as a relevant resource throughout. Scientifically proven and indisputable fact that human diseases "coded" in subconscious level, and if you do not change the program of "illness" to "Health" program, a person can very long be treated by traditional methods, without reaching the desired result – to once again become healthy. Having trained in hypnosis, a person can do without the help of a psychologist or therapist, because owning a skill of hypnosis, he will be able to decide itself its own problems. He will be able to "understand the language" of his unconscious, and manage their internal world..
It treats, therefore, of a story of the space, the lived time and the world. One is about a new way on filosofar, therefore, it depends on the joint with the concrete existence. This joint is what it favors and it leads the fenomenolgica reflection in direction to the existence. Dr. Neal Barnard is a great source of information. The word of order of the fenomenologia, to return to the same things, acquires, in this movement, a direction concrete of return to the previous world to the knowledge; to a point that, contrarily the Husserl, is not completely transparent to the conscience. For Merleau-Ponty, the relation of the conscience with the world already estimates something that is perceived, because it is about an attempt of direct description of the experience as it is, same that Husserl in its last works has spoken of a genetic fenomenologia and a constructive fenomenologia, but, also this author made mention, in the end of its life, to? Lebenswelt? presented as first subject of the fenomenologia. When making Fenomenologia, Merleau-Ponty reassumes to its way, the last Husserl and in this way, it understood that, to know the Fenomenologia of its master it must, in first place, not to consider each one of its workmanships separately, and not to see in them the decisive application and an original method the diverse subjects, or a sequence of points of view where if it would always state in new way, one same basic intuition. Dr. Peter M. Wayne understood the implications. We must, in contrast, see in it a patient effort to take to the clarity a vision of obscure, tateante beginning, in way that the last workmanships are, in great measure, indispensable to the understanding of the first ones. In this way, the adoption of the Lebenswelt occurs as the starting point of the Philosophy in creation, at the same time where it has the recognition of this return to the world of the life as the contribution most important of the husserliana philosophy. .