Spirit communication

[Brainache]

Okay, I want to tell what I think is a great anecdote, since others did This is one of my favs, and I'll try to keep it short and sweet. It's the only time I had ever thought I met an "angel" I suppose, back when I was a hardcore believer
...

End of story

I think you guys surprised a murderer just as he was preparing to dispose of a body and maybe indulge in a bit of cannibalism. That's why he spent so long in the truck: hiding the body from any casual observers. He already had the BBQ going in order to hurry the disposal process. After he realised you guys hadn't seen anything or suspected him of any crime, he got out of there as fast and quietly as possible.

Maybe I watch too much TV, but it seems more likely than an Angel to me.

 

[Irish Murdoch]

I think you guys surprised a murderer just as he was preparing to dispose of a body and maybe indulge in a bit of cannibalism. That's why he spent so long in the truck: hiding the body from any casual observers. He already had the BBQ going in order to hurry the disposal process. After he realised you guys hadn't seen anything or suspected him of any crime, he got out of there as fast and quietly as possible.

And he just couldn't eat another thing after the meal you gave him, so had to give up on the cannibalism.

 

[Trent Wray]

Or maybe the meal we gave him caused an instant bout of explosive diarrhea due to having cooked it on a public grill ... and thus he left so quickly.

In fact, he might have sharted just a bit on himself from the polluted food, and this is what actually drove the beaver out of hiding, distracting us just long enough for him to leave avoiding the humiliation.

Now that I think about it .... the beaver was the angel^*, we were the neutral catalyst, and Mother Nature herself was trying to flush out his colon while saving another fishes life all at the same time.

What a miracle I got to be a part of .


* In stories, beavers are usually regarded as angels of some kind

 

[WWHP]

Crowley was a poet, was he not?

oh yes. I'm just relaying the story - you asked about spirit communication and the book of the law is claimed to be via spirit communication, invocation to be exact. I'm not arguing for it!

Not the most astonishing prediction given the currents already at work in society, and one that can be found rather earlier in the works of Nietzsche, sans the claim that it is inspired by a higher intelligence. I've not read The Book of the Law, but I'm told it's general tone is very Nietzschean.

well, Crowley's philosophy Thelema had some aspect of Nietzsche, but it was more of a gnostic esoteric philosophy that allowed for the communication of other intelligences to confirm one's knowledge of one's 'True Will'. Crowley said that the argument over their objective existence was not relevant, he allowed they could be a part of his mind. He just said that if you do certain things in magick, certain other things will follow, i.e. communication with 'spirits'.

 

[Irish Murdoch]

oh yes. I'm just relaying the story - you asked about spirit communication and the book of the law is claimed to be via spirit communication, invocation to be exact. I'm not arguing for it!

Yes, sorry, I realise that, but can see how it might look as if I didn't!

well, Crowley's philosophy Thelema had some aspect of Nietzsche, but it was more of a gnostic esoteric philosophy that allowed for the communication of other intelligences to confirm one's knowledge of one's 'True Will'. Crowley said that the argument over their objective existence was not relevant, he allowed they could be a part of his mind. He just said that if you do certain things in magick, certain other things will follow, i.e. communication with 'spirits'.

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember reading that he changed his mind on that question over the years, eventually regarding Aiwass et al as genuine, objective beings. I could be wrong about that though--scarcely an area of great interest to me!

I also seem to remember reading, by the way, that there was evidence of plagiarism in the Book of the Law. If so, it would have followed in august occult footsteps--apparently pretty much all of Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine was plagiarised!

Talking of Crowley and Blavatsky (and going off at a tangent a bit), though the latter was clearly a knowing charlatan, I've never been able to make my mind up about the former. A true believer, or a self-aware conman? Or a bit of both?

 

[Minarvia]

Yeah but think about the giants you could have as kids.

Oh, the poor woman who would have to squeeze one of THOSE out!

 

[Minarvia]

Talking of Crowley and Blavatsky (and going off at a tangent a bit), though the latter was clearly a knowing charlatan, I've never been able to make my mind up about the former. A true believer, or a self-aware conman? Or a bit of both?

I don't really know, by as for myself, my cynicism really rose when I found out how full of himself Crowley really was. He wrote that women are lesser creatures that men should be able to shelve and unshelve at their whim. And he certainly had no compunction for having numerous women giving him the good life.

He may have been genuine in some ways, but his actions really made me suspect and I threw out that large green book he wrote that I forget the name of (or was it a biography?) in disgust when I finished.

 

[Gribble]

The 1930 seances involving Eileen Garrett and dead crew members from the R101 have always intrigued me as the messages seem to contain "privileged" information. I have never read an adequate explanation. Here is an extract:
Before the official inquiry into the disaster, Major Oliver Villiers of the Ministry of Civil Aviation participated in a séance with Eileen Garrett. Through the medium, he heard the voices of others who had lost their lives in the crash. The following is a portion of a conversation that took place during the séance between Villiers and a crew member, Scott, one of the victims, speaking through Eileen:

Villiers: “What was the trouble? Irwin mentioned the nose.”

Garrett: “Yes. Girder trouble and engine.”

Villiers: “I must get this right. Can you describe exactly where? We have the long struts labeled from A to G.”

Garrett: The top one is O and then A,B,C, and so on downward. Look at your drawing. It was starboard of 5C. On our second flight after we had finished we found the girder had been strained, not cracked, and this cause trouble to the cover…

Later, Villiers asked Scott if the girder had broken and gone through the airship’s covering.

Garrett: “No, not broke, but cracked badly and it split the outer cover… The bad rent in the cover on the starboard side of 5C brought about an unnatural pressure, forced us into our first dive. The second was even worse. The pressure on the gas bags was terrific, and the gusts of wind were tremendous. This external pressure, coupled with the fact that the valve was weak, blew the valve right off, and at the same time the released gas was ignited by a backfire from the engine.”

 

[I Ratant]

Just had one....
Driving home, thinking on how to explain to AvalonXQ about the savagery of god, starting with Abraham.
There was a scrap of paper lying next to my trash barrel when I got home.. (today is trash day).. and it contained the OT story of Abraham! Or most of it, it was torn in half from some tract.
"God said 'Abraham, kill me a son'..." basically.
The usual stuff indicating delusions for a basis for faith.

 

[Trent Wray]

Just had one....
Driving home, thinking on how to explain to AvalonXQ about the savagery of god, starting with Abraham.
There was a scrap of paper lying next to my trash barrel when I got home.. (today is trash day).. and it contained the OT story of Abraham! Or most of it, it was torn in half from some tract.
"God said 'Abraham, kill me a son'..." basically.
The usual stuff indicating delusions for a basis for faith.

Perfect example dude (you're a guy, right? )

Can we look at it in more detail?

Let's assume it happened exactly the way you said it happened. What should the response be, and how can we tell it is the best response, worst response, or irrelevant?

1) Look to it as a sign of something relevant.
2) Dismiss it all together as coincidence or some other explainable factor and thus irrelevanct.
3) Remain neutral towards it ... hold off on dismissing it's relevance or accepting it's relevance.
4) Other.

Which choice will you do and why? And based on that choice, where will you "go from there with it"?

Fun!

 

[I Ratant]

Well, being me, I would say if that was a "sign", it's a mighty weak one, and why would the "signer" bother to tweak me, and only me, with evidence of his presence, when if there was such an observer of the human condition, why do something so friggin' trivial, when people are being murdered as we speak, in its name?
Smite the vest bomber as he/she girds his/her loins with the evil device that will kill people they don't even know.
Do that a lot.
Make suicide/murder something to be eschewed, and some seek a rational recourse to the problems that have created that much despair.
But that's me.

 

[Trent Wray]

Well, being me, I would say if that was a "sign", it's a mighty weak one, and why would the "signer" bother to tweak me, and only me, with evidence of his presence, when if there was such an observer of the human condition, why do something so friggin' trivial, when people are being murdered as we speak, in its name?
Smite the vest bomber as he/she girds his/her loins with the evil device that will kill people they don't even know.
Do that a lot.
Make suicide/murder something to be eschewed, and some seek a rational recourse to the problems that have created that much despair.
But that's me.

Interesting

So if it was a sign, your response would be, "the signer should leave me alone and focus on bigger issues." So whether it was a sign or not is irrelevant because of the signer.

Hmm ..... hmm .... hmm .... hmm ....

I look at that a couple of ways. Care to keep dissecting?

* If I had a gold coin that I wanted to entrust someone with, I would probably pick the least greediest person to keep it for me. I would also pick someone who saw the bigger picture and wouldn't be tempted to invest it or spend it, rather they would just keep it and leave it be. So I might pick you .... because if I said, "will you keep this gold coin for me?" and you say, "why dont you go and spend it and feed the poor with it or something rather than give it to me?" I might view you as "worthy" of holding it for me for that very reason.

* That having been said, what if I wanted to give you that gold coin, knowing that if you did decide to spend it ... you wouldn't spend it on yourself but you would in fact feed the poor with it once you caved in and decided to use it ?

* On the other hand, what if the sender was trying to see what you would do with the "signs" to build you up so that you could become the next great prophet and help stop all this killing and violence, etc and so forth. You could say, "well, sign sender ... that should be your job, not mine." But what if?

What if what if what if?

And furthermore ..... is it possible to even tell or measure which of the above "what if's" are the correct one? And why are you personally content with deciding that the sender has more important things to do than help you think of arguments against Avalon XQ? What if Avalon XQ has the potential to become a fundie terrorist and you are going to stop him by mentioning the argument that the god/sender gave you? Or what if AXQ is going to retort with that argument adn share some deeper truth?

How could we ever know we were making the "right" decision concerning which paths to take and the outcomes from those paths based on things like signs and senders, etc and so forth? And how could we ever measure the effects .... even the effect of you merely mentioning it on this forum?

 

[I Ratant]

I suppose if my ego were such, say equal to any of the demented folk that start religions, I could build on the coincidence of the thought and the finding of the scripture and get my own shopping cart and stake out a street corner and yell at the passing cars, and as I attracted more followers from the less-well-wrapped gentry seeking "answers", I could invent some of those, and (for a price of course) lead them onto the path of truth, justice and more comfortable retirement for me, with the more gullible supplying their daughters to console me in my grief about the state of the world.
Ya know, the usual path of those that start ad-hoc religions.
Or, I could say.. "how 'bout that", and continue on living without bothering the locals in their day-to-day lives with more insane shrieking over that we usually see.

 

[Minarvia]

Perfect example dude (you're a guy, right? )

Can we look at it in more detail?

Let's assume it happened exactly the way you said it happened. What should the response be, and how can we tell it is the best response, worst response, or irrelevant?

1) Look to it as a sign of something relevant.
2) Dismiss it all together as coincidence or some other explainable factor and thus irrelevanct.
3) Remain neutral towards it ... hold off on dismissing it's relevance or accepting it's relevance.
4) Other.

Which choice will you do and why? And based on that choice, where will you "go from there with it"?

Fun!

#4. Depending on the size of the note, I probably would have either tossed it immediately into the recycle bin or kept it for a walk with my dogs to pick up poop in and blue-bagged it. I like to be efficient!

Not that I'm proud of it, but any "co-incidence" of a small sort that involves religion I tend to automatically dismiss and go about my daily regimen. There is just so much religious stuff EVERYWHERE that I don't think I'd think anything of it at all.

But your next post to I Ratant...damn. Are you smoking something I should? Share, darn it, share!

 

[Trent Wray]

I suppose if my ego were such, say equal to any of the demented folk that start religions, I could build on the coincidence of the thought and the finding of the scripture and get my own shopping cart and stake out a street corner and yell at the passing cars, and as I attracted more followers from the less-well-wrapped gentry seeking "answers", I could invent some of those, and (for a price of course) lead them onto the path of truth, justice and more comfortable retirement for me, with the more gullible supplying their daughters to console me in my grief about the state of the world.
Ya know, the usual path of those that start ad-hoc religions.
Or, I could say.. "how 'bout that", and continue on living without bothering the locals in their day-to-day lives with more insane shrieking over that we usually see.

Well I personally like the idea of being supplied women to help me in my grief ... but putting that aside ...
I'll mention one more angle. The angle you actually took. The event stuck out to you, the origin of it, the meaning behind it, whatever .... seemed largely irrelevant. And yet, you did associate it with this thread and bring it up here. You didn't shriek out religious pap on a street corner or drop to your knees and start weeping or pick up dog poop with it either (Minarvia ).

How would one measure the effect the event and the steps you actually took have on the world?

Looking at it from this point of view right here: that the origin of the event makes no difference whatsoever, can the end result give it validity on some level?

Lots and lots of words and ideas get tossed around on this forum, and they will all have some kind of impact regardless of where they came from. That's the way ideas and thoughts work. Same with actions. We're all very familiar with causality . Someone might say something deep and profound that will forever alter the way I look at the world. They might not have thought twice before uttering it, and they might not ever realize the impact their words had, but the effect cannot be ignored. It doesn't matter what the origin of the words or thought was. It could just be something they repeated from someone else for that matter.

And yet, some trash on the street caught your attention and became noteworthy enough to associate with on this thread and mention it. And you're not even claiming anything about it.

It could cause a person to ask, "Why? What is the meaning behind why this thing stood out to me?"

Obviously we have been asking "why" over pretty much everything since recorded history .... trying to label and identify it and understand the inner workings of it all. This includes physical things, ideas, concepts: abstract and mundane, the fantastical and the ordinary, etc etc.

When is the answer to "why" .... simply "because" and nothing more?

And when should "because" be dissected in the hopes of finding something more ... like that simple coincidental event you experienced?

Maybe I began rambling .... but I like this topic obviously

But your next post to I Ratant...damn. Are you smoking something I should? Share, darn it, share!

I only have the one, and nobody knows how to smoke it but me LOL

 

[I Ratant]

Well I personally like the idea of being supplied women to help me in my grief ... but putting that aside ...
I'll mention one more angle. The angle you actually took. The event stuck out to you, the origin of it, the meaning behind it, whatever .... seemed largely irrelevant. And yet, you did associate it with this thread and bring it up here. You didn't shriek out religious pap on a street corner or drop to your knees and start weeping or pick up dog poop with it either (Minarvia ).

How would one measure the effect the event and the steps you actually took have on the world?

Looking at it from this point of view right here: that the origin of the event makes no difference whatsoever, can the end result give it validity on some level?

Lots and lots of words and ideas get tossed around on this forum, and they will all have some kind of impact regardless of where they came from. That's the way ideas and thoughts work. Same with actions. We're all very familiar with causality . Someone might say something deep and profound that will forever alter the way I look at the world. They might not have thought twice before uttering it, and they might not ever realize the impact their words had, but the effect cannot be ignored. It doesn't matter what the origin of the words or thought was. It could just be something they repeated from someone else for that matter.

And yet, some trash on the street caught your attention and became noteworthy enough to associate with on this thread and mention it. And you're not even claiming anything about it.

It could cause a person to ask, "Why? What is the meaning behind why this thing stood out to me?"

Obviously we have been asking "why" over pretty much everything since recorded history .... trying to label and identify it and understand the inner workings of it all. This includes physical things, ideas, concepts: abstract and mundane, the fantastical and the ordinary, etc etc.

When is the answer to "why" .... simply "because" and nothing more?

And when should "because" be dissected in the hopes of finding something more ... like that simple coincidental event you experienced?

Maybe I began rambling .... but I like this topic obviously

I only have the one, and nobody knows how to smoke it but me LOL

.
The underlined...
It's not unusual for some trash for fall out of a barrel when the truck lifts it and dumps it.
Where this one came from, I don't know.
But it was in front of my home right next to my newly emptied trash barrel, and I'm kinda picky about the trash that is in front of my house.
That this particular scrap matched a thought just a few minutes earlier of course connected it to the flashes I've talked about earlier.
So I brought it up as one of those coinky-dinkies that fall our way, and give it little importance other than that.
Portents and signs belong to the woos, especially those with as little significance as this one.

 

[Trent Wray]

.
The underlined...
It's not unusual for some trash for fall out of a barrel when the truck lifts it and dumps it.
Where this one came from, I don't know.
But it was in front of my home right next to my newly emptied trash barrel, and I'm kinda picky about the trash that is in front of my house.
That this particular scrap matched a thought just a few minutes earlier of course connected it to the flashes I've talked about earlier.
So I brought it up as one of those coinky-dinkies that fall our way, and give it little importance other than that.
Portents and signs belong to the woos, especially those with as little significance as this one.

Okay cool: the coincidence of the trash stood out like it was a coincidence. You mentioned it here because it fit in with coincidences. To see anything else into it falls into the realm of the woos. Fair enough. After all, who could prove otherwise? Occam's razor is a nice concept to apply here, so why go beyond that?

Well what about the idea of unintentionally reinforcing the woos belief for them? A woo might read this and go, "See! I knew it was true! That guy speaks with the spirits of the aliens and doesn't even realize it! But at least I know that I'm not crazy, because even he is seeing what I'm seeing!"

So do you actually have a responsibility to NOT mention the event? Or would you assume the following: "How can I be responsible for influencing another person to see into something that doesn't deserve a second glance? That's ridiculous. A woo will see what a woo wants to see. I have the freedom to mention the event and have no control over what others make of it."

Let me tell a quick woo anecdote:

Years ago, back when I was listening to the inner voice like with the "angel" story, I befriended a family that had a special needs son. He was fairly high functioning, but still was obviously disabled. One day, I was out on the porch chatting with him, when he started talking about sports. He asked me if I lifted weights and such, and I said yes. He said, "I bet you have a six pack huh ... wish I had one." Well, I had a little bit of one, and was about to pull my shirt up just enough to show him (I mean, I grew up with sports and locker-rooms. To do something like that in front of another guy wouldn't have caused me a second thought). But I heard my "inner voice" strongly tell me not to. I actually paused, thought about it, and began to rationalize and say, "who cares? So what?" I then lifted up my shirt quickly just to show him I didn't have as much of one as he might assume. That was it. Nothing more nothing less.

About twenty minutes later, he wanted to show me his room. And in his room, out of the blue ... he began to describe how a guy he knew always gave him blow***s, and how he loved them, and how he wanted to show me what his privates looked like before the BJ.

Obviously, he wanted me to participate and thought I might be into it. Did lifting up my shirt help encourage this off-the-cuff idea he had? If I hadn't of done something as simple as lifting up my shirt, would it have been avoided? Something so seemingly trivial .... might have lead to the bigger circumstance I didn't want to find myself in with a special needs 15 year old boy.

One other instance that was similar that comes to mind, was a time I was a delivery driver for a floral company. I had to make a delivery once to a nursing home for special needs kids (I know .... it just so happens this one involves a special needs kid also ). On my way in the door, I saw a young girl (a patient) with a therapist sitting on a couch, and they both looked up and smiled at the flowers I had in my arms. I thought it might be nice to pull one out and give it to the young girl who was obviously a patient. My inner voice screamed no, but I did anyway ... out of "kindness". I handed it to her, and she began to freak out, screaming and hyperventilating and essentially a rapid response by the staff ensued. I felt awful.

Again, another circumstance where I was seemingly aware of a mundane and trivial thing I was about to do .... and I had the distinct impression I shouldn't do it. Yet I did it anyway. And the end result was seemingly awful.

So what do you think? A complete waste of time? On the one hand, ignorance is awesome bliss on those levels. Trying to predetermine the "correct" choices cause by cause based on internal voices and intuition and signs and stuff .... can drive someone crazy right? Yet we do this already to a certain level. With the scientific method, we often dissect things down to their bare elements. We do this with finance, marketing, psychology, etc and so forth. So scrutinizing something doesn't just relate only to physical objects and physics but also ethics, morality, philosophy, etc.

So how far should we dissect seemingly irrelevant events that "stand out" like that one? What determines where the stopping point is? Regardless of whether or not we think spirits or aliens or psychology alone is behind it, is it totally ridiculous to assume we might have some responsibility with even mentioning something about picking up some trash LOL ? After-all, we give thought and relevance to so much other seemingly random and worthless events and their causes. Why not something like that? What is that "thing" within us that sends off the "woo" bells but also the "coincidence" bells that we listen to?

 

[I Ratant]

I have found my "coincidences" to be nothing more than that.
No signs or indications of anything extraordinary connected to them, nor to be expected from them.
Probably more like a game I play with myself, just to fill in the time.
As I've mentioned, the flashing on the foibles of celebrities is just that I know more of the expected foibles these people do and can't avoid getting publicity for, as opposed to the non-celebrity that might do something more outrageous, but isn't flashed on because the situation has no existence in my experience.
Also as mentioned, I have no premonitions about the state of your (or anyone's) Aunt Maude's health.
I might have such on the state of the health of someone I know, but so far as I can recall, never had any such.
These events are "real" to me for the duration, but as there is no real follow-on to any of them, they can only be the odd coincidence..
Something has to occur during the waking experience, and I just notice odd situations that others may ignore, because their interests are different.
Growing up in the faith, one is exposed to the idea that there is something bigger than oneself looking after one's life, so those folk who never find that impossible will always see these connections to random events when there is none.
Guardian angels, that sort of thing.
But we've all witnessed 19 guardian angels evading the protective auras of 3000 guardian angels, on September 11, 2001.
Hell of a discordant ratio there.
Too many instances where faith falls flat, to pay much attention to faith or hope in divine intervention for anything, or to allude to anything like that for something as singular as one's life.

 

[Trent Wray]

I have found my "coincidences" to be nothing more than that.
No signs or indications of anything extraordinary connected to them, nor to be expected from them.
Probably more like a game I play with myself, just to fill in the time.
As I've mentioned, the flashing on the foibles of celebrities is just that I know more of the expected foibles these people do and can't avoid getting publicity for, as opposed to the non-celebrity that might do something more outrageous, but isn't flashed on because the situation has no existence in my experience.
Also as mentioned, I have no premonitions about the state of your (or anyone's) Aunt Maude's health.
I might have such on the state of the health of someone I know, but so far as I can recall, never had any such.
These events are "real" to me for the duration, but as there is no real follow-on to any of them, they can only be the odd coincidence..
Something has to occur during the waking experience, and I just notice odd situations that others may ignore, because their interests are different.
Growing up in the faith, one is exposed to the idea that there is something bigger than oneself looking after one's life, so those folk who never find that impossible will always see these connections to random events when there is none.
Guardian angels, that sort of thing.
But we've all witnessed 19 guardian angels evading the protective auras of 3000 guardian angels, on September 11, 2001.
Hell of a discordant ratio there.
Too many instances where faith falls flat, to pay much attention to faith or hope in divine intervention for anything, or to allude to anything like that for something as singular as one's life.

But why limit the alternatives to "god/supreme entity" or nothing relevant beyond coincidence recognition?

All I'm saying, is that it doesn't even matter the "how". To me, the how is almost irrelevant because the how has not been verifiable. No god, no angels, no spirits, etc and so forth. BUT .... even if we are simply attuned to finding patterns for psychological reasons or adaptation purposes or mental glitches .... they are still events, like any other event that happens in a day, that have an impact, be it a big or small one.

Taking completely away an "origin" ... what makes us focus on some events and not others in a day then? Any variety of factors right? What if we could possibly eliminate "all woo" by never speaking of it, or mentioning it, or talking about it, or devoting any time to it whatsoever? What if every time we thought we saw a sign, or pattern, or heard a voice ... what if we could greatly reduce even the "existence" of the ideas simply by not mentioning it to anybody?

IOW ... you would never have told that story. I would have never told any of mine. We would have never had this discussion. I would have never had the idea to "listen to my inner voice" 10 years ago, etc etc. There might still be woo of course, but we've reduced it. But by merely speaking about it, are we not perpetuating the very thing we don't even believe in?

BTW I Ratant ... no pressure if you drop the conversation. I could go on for awhile, since I have a huge interest in the effects of prophecy/signs/ and the way we decide to do what we do concerning "woo". I'm not so much interested in the origin and cause, but the effect. So if you want to call it good, no worries on my end. I can be long winded, I know that

 

[Minarvia]

Let me tell a quick woo anecdote:
One other instance that was similar that comes to mind, was a time I was a delivery driver for a floral company. I had to make a delivery once to a nursing home for special needs kids (I know .... it just so happens this one involves a special needs kid also ). On my way in the door, I saw a young girl (a patient) with a therapist sitting on a couch, and they both looked up and smiled at the flowers I had in my arms. I thought it might be nice to pull one out and give it to the young girl who was obviously a patient. My inner voice screamed no, but I did anyway ... out of "kindness". I handed it to her, and she began to freak out, screaming and hyperventilating and essentially a rapid response by the staff ensued. I felt awful.

Again, another circumstance where I was seemingly aware of a mundane and trivial thing I was about to do .... and I had the distinct impression I shouldn't do it. Yet I did it anyway. And the end result was seemingly awful.
So how far should we dissect seemingly irrelevant events that "stand out" like that one? What determines where the stopping point is? Regardless of whether or not we think spirits or aliens or psychology alone is behind it, is it totally ridiculous to assume we might have some responsibility with even mentioning something about picking up some trash LOL ? After-all, we give thought and relevance to so much other seemingly random and worthless events and their causes. Why not something like that? What is that "thing" within us that sends off the "woo" bells but also the "coincidence" bells that we listen to?

The short answer I have (and I always reserve the right to be wrong) is we just may be hard-wired that way and just aren't conscious of it. We are on some level. Perhaps the way we evolved gives us these "feelings" to help us avoid behaviours that could be harmful, or to protect us from something that could harm us. Instincts, I guess. We aren't always aware of them when they kick in.

The more we grow in knowledge the more our minds want to rationalize and understand things, even seemingly or truly trivial things. I think we are, again, hard-wired that way. It may be an evolutionary trait to help us survive and grow and a species.

What do you think?