Comments on: Yoko? Oh, no!

By: tui

tui — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:47:02 +0000

The point is not really if the science she talks about fits your standards of what IS science…its to demonstrate simply that water has intelligence, it knows and contains all the information to make a living person like ourselves operate…it does contain all the emotions and all the words in it, whether we know it or not…

to the numb skeptics its probably irrelevant the fact we are composed 70% water…once again, 7/10 of you…i dont suppose you reeaaly think that the water is just there, sitting around, oblivious to you as you are to it???….

Please show more appreciation and respect to H2O and yourselves (being composed of such), and dont just attempt to call crap and experiment that at least tries to show that water knows a lot more about us than we about water…

Obviously, to the short minded, thats too much of a broad concept to fit in the head, and all sit confortably with the logical cancellations of cartesian impotence..

By: John

John — Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:46:01 +0000

Kex,

Whether Yoko wrote that letter or not, it has nothing to do with the validity of Dr. Emoto’s experiments. Dr. Emoto’s work is independent of Yoko using it in a peaceful letter.

I have no reaction to your question. I may ask him if he has the same understanding as I do, which is the following :
The basic principles are this : 1) Spoken language admits sound 2) Sound admits vibration 3) Vibration is registered in water.
Now the difficult concept to grasp and bridge together is the idea that spoken language somehow resonates in a written word. The premise that is being used to bridge this gap is the following : The source of life = water = energy. If this is true then all ‘things’ are working in conjunction with one another (similar premise to the theory of relativity) and these vibrations manifest in written and spoken language and can be registered in water. Therefore we can scientifically see the effects of our energy upon ‘things’ and it lends credence to the concept that there is an inter-dependency of all ‘things’.
The following model can also be offered :
Soul (or psyche) : Life :: body : water
To the degree that our soul participates in ‘goodness’ is to the degree that the effects of that participation will reflect in our body. Our life will register the effects of what we participate in at a soul level(Don’t be confused by this term, I mean psyche or your persona. What you commonly call I), so to our body will register the effects of it’s participation with soul through water.

By: kex

kex — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:35:30 +0000

“…very dangerously muddy people…” ?

Let’s say it wasn’t Yoko? Oh No! - say it was someone with a smaller soapbox, or one with none at all. What then would you think of literate water?

You’re reading a mag in your favorite cafe and some kook tells you your coffee is reading the article too. Your reaction?

By: Nettie

Nettie — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:22:35 +0000

I have to agree with John. I think people who say that this kind of experiment is some “wacky new age scam”, don’t realise that the “new age” isn’t an airy fairy concept, it is right HERE. This is part of a NEW LEVEL of science that the traditional scientist don’t like because it is “new” and they don’t understand it (that’s why they don’t get funded and therefore recognised). We are powerful beings in a powerful universe and it is the truth of that, that will be the best technology we have ever discovered. Good on you Masaru Emoto. May people listen to you and not be afraid to realise how powerful they are and not be afraid to take resonsabilty for themselves and the part they take on this planet.

By: John

John — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:31:00 +0000

I was sent this article by someone and my first reaction to it was, what a bunch of BS! I’m always skeptical and use discursive reasoning in everything I read or hear.
After a bit of reflection, this idea actually doesn’t seem so outlandish. You’re missing the point if you’re taking the title, ‘Water can read’ as literal. The title itself is very misleading. The point isn’t that water can literally read, but that there is a basic foundation for the vibrational relationship between words we use in nature and their effects upon water.
The basic principles are this : 1) Spoken language admits sound 2) Sound admits vibration 3) Vibration is registered in water.
Now the difficult concept to grasp and bridge together is the idea that spoken language somehow resonates in a written word. The premise that is being used to bridge this gap is the following. The source of life = water = energy. If this is true then all ‘things’ are working in conjunction with one another (similar premise to the theory of relativity) and these vibrations manifest in written and spoken language and can be registered in water.
Now that I’ve thought about it more, because I only got this article about 30 minutes ago, there may be much more validity to Dr. Emoto’s hypothesis then I initially thought there to be.

By: greg

greg — Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:46:02 +0000

Second, the idea she’s attempting to express - that human beings respond poorly to verbal abuse and positively to verbal affirmation - is hardly outlandish.

Did you not read what I wrote? The idea that water can read is very outlandish. In fact, it’s just plain retarded.

But you know, it’s just so much fun to attack that slant-eyed bitch that broke up the Beatles!

I don’t remember saying anything about Yoko’s race or the breakup of the Beatles. In fact, I find it incredibly offensive that you would imply that my criticism is racist in nature. If you honestly think that my post was based on something other than a pointed criticism on a specific subject, please back up your attacks with some sort of evidence.

And for the record, I don’t think Yoko broke up the Beatles. The Lord did, because he was still pissed about John’s “bigger than Jesus” remark.

By the way, that last remark was a joke. If you spent more than a couple minutes on my site, you’ll see that I tend to do that a lot.

By: dave

dave — Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:01:26 +0000

Let’s see, first off, Ono is writing about the results of experiments reported by a scientist, yet you treat as if this is something she came up with out of thin air. Second, the idea she’s attempting to express - that human beings respond poorly to verbal abuse and positively to verbal affirmation - is hardly outlandish. But you know, it’s just so much fun to attack that slant-eyed bitch that broke up the Beatles! And I though Al Capp was dead…

By: Mark Spittle

Mark Spittle — Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:01:34 +0000

You’re way off on this one. The fact that water can read is proven. The only reason I keep magazines next to the toilet is because my piss is a more prolific reader than I am. Furthermore, my snot sings in a beautiful, lilting voice a bit like Sarah McLaughlin or Kate Bush. My shit, however, just sits there and stinks up the place. I’m not sure if that’s a commentary on my life, or if it really IS just inanimate fecal matter.

By: Joshie

Joshie — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:41:23 +0000

Since water can read and we are 80% water shouldn’t the illiteracy rate be about 20%?

By: The Eligible Ross Lincoln

The Eligible Ross Lincoln — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:12:09 +0000

I wonder if scratching positive messages on the arms and legs of republicans will clean up their dirty souls?