New Radiation Belt

[Bring4th_Austin]

Worldview and imagination are not orthogonal - they necessarily support each other in interpretation, investigation, and learning in general. I agree, we can and do imagine nonviable, untenable, whimsical scenarios for one reason or another. If consciousness is never brought to bear on the suggestions provided by the intuition, we nurture "spiritual secrets" which collect libidinous energy. So these special ideas tend to carry a charge which new-agers, inevitably, falsely associate with a type of special "knowing". Attempting to exploit that meme, of course, are the channelers or other handwavers claiming to be "awakened" and know what's really going on. It's perpetuated by feeling of intuitive connectedness which would otherwise go ignored, due to lack of opportunity (socially or personally provided) to access that part of self.

While I understand that imagination and worldview support each other and that imagination is key in helping advance worldview, I would hope that the way I presented my notions here (questions preceding imaginative scenarios) clearly illustrates that this is coming from a completely uninformed and irrational place.

My reluctance to explore this in the way that you were prompting is because I was worried that this imaginative scenario was being taken as something more, as if I felt I had a "special knowing" and you were trying to dissuade the interpretation rather than explore it.

I certainly encourage "bringing consciousness to bear" on these intuitive notions but your continued line of questioning probably wouldn't serve this function too well for me, as my initial response ("It may have been a reaction to an opportunity to interpret evidence towards an intelligence in the Earth, or in the way the Universe functions") is a platform I would use to explore this and I didn't see that in your questions that followed. Luckily I had my own line of questioning in my head

Since you are curious, to get to the heart of my imagined scenario and where it came from, "protection" is perhaps the wrong direction to go. It was spawned more from a mindset of a broader picture of how "things just work" (vs. the "everything is just random" mindset) Not that the Earth would be protecting us from some outer malicious force, but within it exist the natural functions that offer the perseverance of life.

For instance, if this "shock wave" in fact was something grand or unusual that may have damaged the natural functions of the Earth (imagined scenario), there also exists a sort of grand and unusual function within the Earth to react to this. To get even more imaginative, perhaps something on the quantum level that triggered both this shock wave and this extra belt, the extra belt serving as a function to ensure endurance through this shock wave. Supposing the idea that life is the purpose of the universe, not simply a random result.

Ok, so the article simply provided an opportunity to express an extremely vague notion, regarding role of planet maintaining life, in the form of an allegorical drama.

And others thought that because this suggestion seemed viable, it must have been the actual case - merely because they liked what the idea evoked within. Another catch phrase for that condition is "resonance" which people tend to overextend to "agreement".

I think this same type of thought, which may seem compelling on an allegorical level, is also part of the reason people can get away with irresponsible conspiracy theories and other claims which lack accountability yet foster the imagination through resonance and desire to connect dots in a certain manner.

I can see the correlation between that line of thought and why people can get away with irresponsible conspiracy theories, and I appreciate your attempt at helping to cultivate an environment where these ideas are explored rather than indulged.