[ Join Free! ]
(No Spam mail)

  • RolePlay
  • Join Us
  • Writings
  • Shoutbox
  • Community
  • Digg Mashup
  • Mp3 Search
  • Online Education
  • My Youtube
  • Ear Training
  • Funny Pics
  • nav

  • Role Play
  • Piano Music
  • Free Videos
  • Web 2.0
  • nav

    << | >>

    dots Submission Name: Increased Frequency dots

    Author: Chelebel
    Elite Ratio:    2.2 - 53/167/176
    Words: 216
    Class/Type: Poetry/Serious
    Total Views: 977
    Average Vote:    No vote yet.
    Bytes: 1644

       This is Dolores Cannons continuing work. I am using here theories mixed with my theories ....I'm just summing it up to try and understand her depth.

    Make the font bigger!! Double Spacing Back to recent posts.

    dotsIncreased Frequency dots

    The expectations we are born into
    leave us like wandering sheep
    looking for their shepherd.

    Herding across the peaks and valleys
    of energies and frequencies.
    Feeling life's beings existing
    but not fully understanding.

    Continuing the cycle
    of karma's freeze.
    Reliving, regenerating, Reincarnating
    the same mistakes.
    We made centuries ago but existing

    The choices made today
    are like facets of a diamond.
    Reflecting and refracting light beams.
    Existing in another dimension
    unbeknownst to me.

    Traveling to increase our frequencies.
    Change our vibration
    heal the notion
    of lost and been lost
    but not lost at all.

    Energy can neither be destroyed or created.
    The theory of relativity.
    Or how about
    the theory of everything.

    White and Grey matter.
    Sound changes matter.
    Or does this even matter?

    I like the theory of possibility.
    Increase the frequency.
    Change our vibration.
    Move the negatives
    into positives and enjoy the journey.

    Journey through knowing
    that all we have to do
    is share our light.
    Be the light.
    Let go of fear.
    Let go of anger.
    It's life's simple treasure.

    Submitted on 2015-07-12 14:00:35     Terms of Service / Copyright Rules
    Submissions: [ Previous ] [ Next ]

    Rate This Submission

    1: >_<
    2: I dunno...
    3: meh!
    4: Pretty cool
    5: Wow!

    ||| Comments |||
      So then know-matter the wave? Length is how frequent. Grammar bought a string, but the fabric, neither whir nor word. Quite simply cause and effect.
    | Posted on 2015-08-16 00:00:00 | by ShyOne | [ Reply to This ]
      Flower Power from LSD or whatever, is whatever.
    | Posted on 2015-07-19 00:00:00 | by poetotoe | [ Reply to This ]
      This lady's work is canonical of the platitude ignorance is bliss although I feel like she'd have it as ignorance can be bliss. First, however, I'll look at your poem.

    It is both brief and simplistic. I'm not a fan of unexplained transitions (in this case from us to me, V2 and V17), or halfway riming poem structures (strophe 2 has a defined structure vs. the penultimate strophe having a separate structure and the rest of the poem lacking any altogether).

    The language is very reminiscent of New Age religion, which to me, means it has a lot of pop without any actual meaning. I should be forward about the fact that I've studied/am studying physics at university. And I can tell you that infinite regressions are beautiful, but absolutely meaningless, if not downright vicious. I also know poetry doesn't have to hold to any standards but energy can be created and destroyed. It's more a question of whether or not your system is closed, and in this case, Dolores suggests that it isn't (because of THEM).

    Outside of these two factors (personal preference insofar as structure and my disdain for the content of the poem), I think you have a handy poem. What I mean by that is I can appreciate where you're coming from and what you might be trying to do. I think all forms of poetry are good in some way or another. It just so happens that most cathartic poetry isn't enjoyable for strangers to experience (which, in all seriousness, this isn't).

    And now I move on to Dolores...

    In writing, there is often this tendency to borrow ideas, words, concepts, but to completely rip them of their context so as, unintentionally, rid them of their complete sense. A great example is the word "Quantum" which most people, correctly so, associated with physics. The problem is, they don't understand the scientific revolution in which the idea was born, or what exactly the word means besides referring to some physics-y thing.

    In literature, this flies because most things are based on non-things, stories, fictions, spurious conjectures, etc. The idea is to tie two experiences, concepts, sentiments, etc., together - the way a well placed photograph, although only decorative, can completely change the vibe of a room. Meaning can be found through this basic concept of creativity, but there is a reason we left the uninhibited dreamlike creativity of romanticism behind in favor of science.

    Quantum as an idea finds its root in a thing founded on the now widely accepted method of falsification. If a theory, or idea, if you will, cannot possibly under any circumstance be demonstrably proven as wrong, then it is essentially devoid of meaning. As far as science is concerned, meaningful statements are descriptions about the reality (see: world) we live and exist in. In other words, a non-falsifiable item is on the same level and literature, fiction, etc.

    Although these aforementioned domains have value, they're equivalent to blunt and archaic tools. They're good as precursory tools, for fields in which we're basically inaudible babies (as opposed to say, well-versed experts). They given us vague ideas about how the world could be, which if it happens to be, leaves room for productive thought. But given the somewhat chaotic and complex nature of the universe, as a whole, once our attention was drawn away from our own navels, we realized we needed a much stronger, or rather, more precise tool.

    The unfortunate truth, however, is that the epistemic foundations of science allow for a lot of externalities (see: religion, spirituality, supra-experiential concepts) otherwise known as metaphysics. And if there ever was a Queen of conjectural metaphysics, this lady was it. She treated science like a children's literature book and borrowed from it like an unknowing child. Let me explain.

    The problem science faces with regards to the world is that it relies on our senses. We have long since determined that the world doesn't necessarily end where the span of our senses reach, if only by the mere inference of consequences which we do perceive.

    Early religion, and well into the medieval era (you know, the dark ages, that period where we all just killed one another, ran around fornicating like wild unruly animals, and made few and far between technological developments), was a time in which it was accepted that the Truth (note the uppercase T) was a form of knowledge that exceeded knowability. This acceptance was formulated around a misconceived notion that the truth was absolute and singular (that it relied on nothing but itself and was one of a kind). We've since realized (let's call it via sociological relativity, aka god is dead) that there's no reason why the truth (lowercase t) need be the Truth; in fact, there really is no real reason for us to think that the Truth is at all even a real idea. For one, if it is, it sure as heck isn't falsifiable.

    I don't really want to jump into explaining this idea too much, but it derives from pluralism, pragmatism, etc.; the idea that multiple perspectives of a singular point in reality can hold comparably amounts of validity (truth) while being vastly different and perhaps contradictory. A simple example would be two people standing on opposite sides of a single-sided see-through mirror. Both look at the mirror, one sees themselves while the second sees the other - yet both look at the same mirror.

    It's like magic. It's in part why we realized that we needed to change the modus operandi of science (from seeking the one and only Truth to seeking things we can know).

    The only other leading form of claims about the truth (in relations to the world) operate on a faith basis. This is basically religion and how, for the most part, it has always operated. They give you a story, and if you so choose, then you believe it is The Story (note this uppercase stuff? it's the same stuff as earlier). Intellectually, this route is considerably more lazy, because once you know, well, you know. Emotionally, however, it is an extremely difficult route, to say the least.

    The problem with Dolores is that, she borrows from both of these domains without respecting any of their rules. Which means there is no foundation to any of her ramblings, no rigid structure to uphold her claims, to account for possible contradictions, etc. When she wrote her books, there's no way to discern whether she's talking about the world and reality as we live in it, or as 'we' the proverbial 'humans' of her 'world' of which she writes live in their world. It's not a parallel reality if I write a book about the world, be decidedly change certain things around (thereby creating fiction). In fact, the only reason why the concept of parallel realities hold is because it has value insofar as logic is concerned and because we cannot, as of yet, see why the concept is false. The only claim science can make about it, however, is simply that it is possible. Anything beyond that is both speculation and fiction.

    If I could create and elaborate and convincing jabberwocky (a program that can output language but has no real sense of what any of it means), and have it formulate a haphazard spiritual claim, it would basically be Dolores Cannon 2.0. It wouldn't hold the same weight, though, because we know it's a program. But really, what is the difference between a computer program and a person's agenda, motives, or "intentions"?
    | Posted on 2015-07-12 00:00:00 | by Outlaw | [ Reply to This ]

    Think Feedback more than Compliments :: [ Guidelines ]

    1. Be honest.
    2. Try not to give only compliments.
    3. How did it make you feel?
    4. Why did it make you feel that way?
    5. Which parts?
    6. What distracted from the piece?
    7. What was unclear?
    8. What does it remind you of?
    9. How could it be improved?
    10. What would you have done differently?
    11. What was your interpretation of it?
    12. Does it feel original?


    Be kind, take a few minutes to review the hard work of others <3
    It means a lot to them, as it does to you.

    Remedies written by MyPeriodical
    Scared written by MyPeriodical
    Canalizar written by MyPeriodical
    written by Daniel Barlow
    written by Daniel Barlow
    Stance written by Daniel Barlow
    not alone written by Daniel Barlow
    The annointed one is persecuted. written by MyPeriodical
    A Donde Llegamos written by MyPeriodical
    written by Daniel Barlow
    HeroĆ­na written by MyPeriodical
    written by Daniel Barlow
    written by Daniel Barlow
    written by Daniel Barlow
    I am still sorry. written by MyPeriodical
    Next to you written by robbie
    Everyone written by poetotoe
    untitled written by MyPeriodical
    Labor Pains written by MyPeriodical
    Human Progression written by ForgottenGraves
    Silly Rulers. written by MyPeriodical
    Quoth The Skies and its limits written by MyPeriodical
    Comparisons written by MyPeriodical
    Where is My Ghost written by ForgottenGraves
    Remember written by MyPeriodical
    To Be written by MyPeriodical
    Broken Promises written by S.A.M.
    I am a sorry son. Part two written by MyPeriodical
    written by Daniel Barlow
    Two hundred and seven times written by MyPeriodical




    User Name:


    [ Quick Signup ]
    [ Lost Password ]

    January 10 07
    131,497 Poems

    I have 14,000+ Subscribers on Youtube. See my Video Tutorials

    [ Angst Poetry ]
    [ Cutters ]
    [ Famous Poetry ]
    [ Poetry Scams ]

    [ Smaller ] [ Bigger ]