Here's a little gem for you more pragmatic readers.

The underlying premise of the Ho'oponopono affirmation (I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.) is that everything is interconnected. We "get right" with the world by interacting with it from our Learner/Researcher persona, connecting with an open heart and mind. But what represents this overarching connectedness that Carl Jung called the Collective Conscious and others refer to as karma? How can we see it, touch it, or even know that it's there?

The idea that we are all part of a bigger "whole" has existed in belief systems since before the written word. Somehow in our mechanized, corporate-ladder-climbing, ego-centered existence, our Knower/Judger has left little room for that possibility. Recently though, science, our current collective K/J, has begun to move toward its L/R and explore some of the evidence that frequently disproves its own "knowledge."

Suspend your own personal K/J for a moment and ponder the following:

On September 11, 2001, a global array of computer-driven random number generators monitored by the Global Consciousness Project began to deliver more and more non-random results. The probability of what was happening occurring without some cause was less than one in a thousand.

The event has been described like this: "We are obliged to confront the possibility that the measured correlations may be directly associated with some (as yet poorly understood) aspect of the consciousness attendant global events."

To make this perfectly clear, the output of digital devices around the world, that only generate data using binary (zeroes and ones) were affected by human emotion on a global scale.  If you're reading that from your K/J, you're probably having a tough time.

This deviation from random didn't only occur on 9/11. It's been witnessed with:

The figure below represents the history of the formal hypothesis testing. It displays the cumulative deviation of results from chance expectation (shown as the horizontal black line at zero deviation). Truly random data would produce a jagged curve with no slope, wandering up and down around the horizontal. The dotted smooth curves show the 0.05 and 0.001 probability envelopes that help to define significant versus chance excursions.

The jagged red line shows the accumulating excess of the empirically normalized Z-scores relative to expectation for the complete dataset of rigorously defined events. The overall result is highly significant. The odds against chance are greater than a million to one.