It's an interesting theory, but I haven't drawn any conclusions.

Years ago, when I was a different person, I may have settled firmly on a theory about this, like the metabolism theory. But I try not to do that so much now. I have found that theory tends to solidify into belief. Then the belief gets so wired into us that we take it for a fact. Fact becomes the basis for assumption and then we operate in that limited, closed system with little room to explore new ideas or allow for other theories to be heard.

When I was in my late teens, butter became a "bad food". Books came out. Doctors came on board. Government food guides agreed with the theory and taught the next generation of children to eat margarine instead. Here we are 40 years later and people are still afraid of butter even though there have been plenty of studies that show it's not a "bad food" after all. Yet look at how much space on grocery store shelves is still taken by margarine. The theory that butter wasn't good for us became belief, then fact, then the assumption of that fact gave us fewer choices. All based on a flawed theory.

I also wrote, "Sometimes when I watch the grass, I see a pattern of concentric circles in it, large ones. I am usually soft-focused and calm at the time and not thinking about much of anything. And then there it is. Just as real as the eyes I'm using to see the pattern. It's not a woo-woo sort of thing. It's not imagination - we can tell when we are making something up. It's just there. And then after a bit when I start thinking of other things, it quietly dissolves and the grass becomes normal again. It happens often enough that it's interesting to me." But, again, I haven't drawn any conclusions.

Maybe when I was first beginning to explore psychic or mystical phenomena, I would have been happy to adopt someone else's pet theory about what these circles mean. It gives us somewhere to start. But we have to be flexible. Look what happened to crop circles. Some may well be quite valid otherworldly phenomena, but there are others that are clearly fake, made as pranks or made to debunk a theory that doesn't fit someone's worldview. To settle solidly on the theory that they are landing sites for flying saucers might have put me right in the forefront of the next wave of valid information, or it may have put me clearly on the side of kooks who will believe in anything.

This is not to say I don't find beliefs valid. They are. But I need to remember that they are beliefs - not solid unmovable "for once and for all" facts.

Take ear candling: Mary used and taught the method for many years. When I asked her to each me the method, she was reluctant. She had discovered that some of the information she had been taught about the process was untrue, and didn't want to continue the lie. She felt so bad that she had been misled and had misled others that she gave it up altogether. I wonder if she would have given it up if she had seen the information as theoretical, rather than moving solidly into belief. You see, my experience of ear candling is that it is a useful, healing tool, even if some of the common beliefs about it have been found to be invalid. I didn't care if the wax in the candle was earwax or candle wax. Having my ears candled felt good and my hearing brightened. I don't know why. I don't think it was entirely a placebo because I felt an odd, pleasant neurological tingle while the candling was being done on the side where I later noticed the most improvement. Maybe Mary didn't have to throw it all away.

I find that taking a more fluid approach to these sorts of things often gives me more room. I learned a good tactic for this from a wise teacher. MJ used the word "supposedly" whenever presenting a theory that might or might not fit into the worldview of her students or a theory which might or might not stand the test of time - but a theory she found workable, at least for the time being. She would say, "This is an exercise that supposedly connects your left and right brain." Or she'd say "This breathing pattern is supposedly good for your digestion." When I used MJ's breathing exercise, I found that for me on that day, it worked well. I didn't need to settle on any theory. I was enjoying the results.

Over the years I have seen a lot of photos of "orbs" that have turned out to be simple lens flare and photos of ghostly apparitions that have turned out to be reflections, shadows or even the flash catching a stay hair in the frame. Those who send me these things really, really want them to be true. Not because they want to deceive themselves but because they need "proof" of something to support a new worldview. That can be useful. However some people will photoshop orbs into a photo of an ordinary building to bring more "believers into the fold" or to part them from their money. I'd be nuts to discount the many photos I've seen that have stuff in them that I can't explain. That light in the corner by the ficus might very well be your late Uncle Norman. But at the same time, I don't want to be too quick to jump to conclusions.

Often, I just don't know.

And I find it might be better for me to not be too quick to know. It gives me more room. What I do know is that ear candling has been beneficial for me, that concentric circles in the grass are not my imagination and that the breathing exercise I was taught really did help my digestion that day. I like playing with theory, but I have more room to explore when I remember that it's just a theory.

Maybe when it comes to most everything in life, it pays to not draw too many conclusions but to stick to what I know.

Stories like these are a regular feature of my free monthly Ezine, Starry Night. Subscribe today!

All content Copyright © Janet Dane unless otherwise stated.