Begin Archive #008 January 1998
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date sent: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:10:38 +0000
Subject: Re: [Psi] Beliefs
Hi Dan,
>The whole scene is changing its character. We are learning we have
>more of a handle on what can happen than we used to. In doing that,
>we conquer the fears associated with doing something impossible.
Do you think that the belief systems of the psi instructors is as
much responsible as the belief systems of the students?
>I asked: "what are the buildings used for ? Where, roughly, are they
>(that is, in the UK) ?" Any answer to both questions to which my
>comment would be "yes" constituted success. The successful RVer
>said: "they're an old people's home. In a northern city." I did not
>demand Sheffield, but Yorkshire would have been OK too.
>The same person then correctly (and uniquely) identified a
>classmate's buildings plan as a very old chemicals factory in Kent -
>but not which one or exactly where.
Just so you know, basic remote viewing would not expect that type of
data until quite into it, and people being able to tell you WHAT
something is correctly would be rare enough; WHERE it is, is dowsing
not RV (though often related); the PURPOSE is yet another thing; all
of these are considered "intermediate" data in most RV training.
Someone who can tell you that right off the top is probably an
exceptional clairvoyant.
>This is where we get onto the "hidden agenda" of psycho stuff. Why
>do beginners in healing do so well and then run into trouble once
>they're really dug into it ?
[snip]
>We have banks and banks of negativity we're not aware of about doing
>unorthodox things and the difficulties and disappointments that
>stack up for practitioners are purely the unconscious showing we
>have run into our own natural walls of possibility.
I think that is likely true.
I also think it possible that all healing may work, contrary to
popular belief, internally to the healer and not just "at" the
patient. In other words, all healing is self-healing to some degree.
Initially, like with powerful meditations, everything works great.
Then the Self realizes that CHANGE IS IMPENDING and (a) suddenly the
person can't seem to get around to meditating, and/or (b) when the
person does, their focus is less, and their effects are less.
>For me, the arcane idea of "protection" is wholly counter-productive
>- you are only protecting against your own self-development. So I
>take what I've heard described as "the psychic Sherman tank" route:
>you forge ahead and imagine yourself into a position where the
>current round of problems have been dissolved away.
That's probably a good way to go about it.
On the subject of protection in general, the only thing I've found
that truly WORKED for me (in some psi-type experiences) was a
combination of what I call "clarity and faith." Instead of making
some kind of block around me, I just made myself intangible, as if I
was transparent, and everything just "blew through me."
Simultaneously, I "had faith" that it was okay, and "accepted" that I
couldn't be harmed. Worked for me. I have never been one to really
feel a need for protection on psi levels, though. Although in my
physical life I am quite mundane, I feel confident that "on those
levels" I'm more than capable of taking care of myself, so that kind
of thing doesn't worry me.
>After you've done this a few times you start looking for the
>short-cuts to the short-cuts.
Now that reminds me of something. The other day I was doing this
meditation and I was frustrated at how obvious my belief systems were
in it. I was imagining that each cell in my body was sort of waking
up, being energized, and focusing in the same direction. I was going
from my toes to my head with this. And I wanted it to go fast, but
my mind believed it couldn't. My thighs took longer than my shins
because they are larger so my mind felt like it had to take longer to
'get through them.' I was telling myself, this is just your belief,
you could do this in a second if you wanted, the time it is taking is
nothing more than your mental construct. But I couldn't shake it, so
I had to plod through it "manually" so to speak. The next day, I
thought of doing it, and BAM! I could feel my whole body change at
once.
It was proving to me I was right of course -- only belief was causing
the slowness of the process. Maybe that goes for all personal
evolution. You know, that we could be really great at a lot of
things except some part of us believes it takes TIME....
>I feel I'm fortunate in being a philosophical sceptic to the degree
>of doubting existence at all, because it leads to a dim recognition
>that we can rewrite our CD of rules. The trouble is, where's the CD
>? And how do we rewrite it ?
Archetype meditations are about the only thing I've found that really
addresses the fundamental beliefs that one holds. Problem is they're
so effective if done well that after a short time and on occasion
miraculous results, from that point forward, getting yourself to DO
them is like getting yourself to jump off a bridge. Your
subconscious interprets it as some kind of death and won't let you
near 'em. I could really use doing some of them and it's SO HARD
it's just unbelievable.
PJ
Date sent: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:51:12 GMT
From: Brian Oldham
Subject: Re: [Psi] What is a ghost?
At 07:01 AM 1/25/98 EST, Bevy J wrote:
> Many reputed cases of 'hauntings' belong to the 'video tape replay' category,
>wherein an event which happened once at some time seems to 'replay' itself
>over and over again. There is no real 'haunting'
Yep, I've heard of this "replay" theory. But it hasn't been shown to have any
physical cause. You can't get 'psychic' readings from a wall or an artifact to
prove this and EM readings would hardly account for such "recordings" so,
the "haunting" theory, at least for now, is surely as good as any. At least
that doesn't presume any cause.
> An investigative group here has been able to photograph several in 20 years.
>So it is not entirely a 'psi' thing.
Tell us more. Why do you think it is not a psi thing?
> As to 'tactile' in several cases, not including the classic 'cold spot' there
>has been a sort of physical 'touch' which was felt by a sleeping person who
>then awoke while still feeling the touch.
> Extensive research by authorities such as Dr. Wm. Roll and others has not
>been able to answer all of your questions. Probably because there is no one,
>set, right, all=covering answer.
That's right. There is such a diversity of phenomena that each 'event' deserves
to be studied in isolation. But, somehere, deep at the heart of all psi phenomena
is an underlying cause. I know I am not going to find answers here but it is
instructive to discuss it.
> I suggest you do some deep study and try to find some empirical answers.
That's good advice - for anyone wishing to take up parapsychology. Surely
you don't want to send me back to school? You might miss me :-)
--
Brian
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date sent: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:40:38 +0000
Subject: Re: [Psi] What would you do?
Hi Brian,
Good post.
>It is one thing to get a reputation for being agressive and
>undiplomatic, not to mention sometimes wrong (par for the course in
>debating forums (fora?) ) but to be thought an evil bounder is most
>undesirable. Yet what's the point of lying?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
("Evil Minions, UNITE!")
Just teasing Brian.
>To take up a career as the ultimate criminal I guess I should need
>to be assured about two things a) there is no God to judge me and
>b) I have total faith in my ability to avoid capture and death. It
>is this religion thing again you see.
You know what's kind of funny about this is that it probably wouldn't
be as true were the situation real as it is for you now.
Back when I believed I actually had some major obligation to be a
decent human being, a boon to society, nice to people, and all that
other junk, I had a pretty massive dark side, that usually manifested
in strange ways, as they are prone to. I knew that I had depths of
the blackest mercenary qualities that, in the right situation, would
manifest at the expense of anyone around me.
When I finally accepted that I contained everything (good and bad,
the worst of both), that everything was equal (one was NOT "better
than" another, they both simply "were"), and that I had the absolute
free will to do anything I wanted without any kind of god-like
retribution coming (free will is hardly free will if you are punished
for your decisions!) -- only lessons based on what I got myself into
on various levels (e.g., rob a bank, go to jail) -- it was strange,
it was like freeing myself in some way.
I guess the best way to say this is, once I accepted and allowed
myself to be a jerk and an evil human being, I realized that I had no
desire to do this at all, and that as a matter of fact, I had a big
desire to be a really GOOD one. Not because I "have" to but because
I have a choice, but now that I accepted I could do anything, it was
finally MY choice. When I gave up some of the belief systems about
cultural expectations it's like I gave up the hold on me, the mystery
and draw to it and all that, that bad-stuff has on everyone. I was
far LESS drawn to "bad stuff" and the dark side of me once I had
no more guilt-prohibition from living it out. Suddenly it had no
more appeal to me than anything else; I had nothing invested in it;
the good/bad/options meant as little to me as half a dozen of the
same book on the shelf and I got to choose the one I took home.
>One theory of psi (Palyne help me out please) is that its mechanism
>may turn out to be totally explainable in terms of physics.
I assume all things will eventually be explained by science. But I
think it would be an error to suggest that it is "not really psi"
simply because physics might explain it. It is no different than it
ever was; it's simply that our science improves. The idea that
psi somehow has to be unexplainable to be psi is "magical thinking"
at its highest.
This is demonstrated by far more skeptics than believers,
interestingly enough. For example, some skeptics maintain that psi
doesn't exist and that the lab results showing it does will
eventually be explained by physics, because it is "not magic." Why
they assume that psi has to be magic instead of physics is beyond me.
I am perfectly okay with it being a simple matter of working
within the laws of our universe, that our physics will hopefully
eventually figure out a larger part of.
>There may be no exotic alternate universes or other dimensions -
>just, as yet, badly understood physics.
I suspect we have both. :-)
>Therefore God and his kingdom become even more remote; not to say,
>unlikely.
Sounds like you were brought up in a judeo-christian belief system
that believed God was "out there" somewhere, like sitting on a cloud
looking down or something. In my theology, god is "in here." In
everything. Looking "for" him elsewhere would be.... er, pointless.
>In that case why the hell should I bother to be good? Why give to
>Children In Need? Why help old ladies across the street? Why
>should I not follow my nature as defined by my genetic code and
>simply live for me?
It is a Darwinian-type assumption that your genetic code specifies
that you should be ruthless and mercenary. We cannot ignore, if you
want to be truly objective about this, the effects that our cultures
have on us. There is as much genetic programming to protect and
serve (if not more) than there is to kill everyone around you.
Why not follow what you feel is your nature now? You likely won't
let go of that until you are willing to accept it. Basic psychology,
really. Reminds me of that saying, "There are three ways to get
something done: Do it yourself, hire someone to do it, or forbid your
kids to do it."
>Other theories though, suggest that psi might perhaps be due to
>faults in the space/time continuum (whatever that is) which allow
>glimpses of the other side and/or shortcuts to other place/times in
>our own world.
I believe (for now) we are simply part of a spectrum. We are the
red-band in a rainbow, so to speak, the rainbow being "manifestation"
-- and the "larger part of us." The body (red band) being just one
part of us. Everything is simply vibrating energy. The whole linear
space and time thing is a surface truth but not how things operate
fundamentally. The non-local reality is like the programming.... the
surface reality is like what you see in the video game. My theories
are subject to change at a moment's notice, though. :-)
>In this these theories a "other side" is necessary to explain e.g.
>spirits of the departed. In such cases God may exist. Then I
>should hesitate to incur His wrath.
You relate ghosts to God? That's an interesting correlation. :-)
PJ
Date sent: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:51:10 GMT
From: Brian Oldham
Subject: Re: [Psi] What is a ghost?
At 12:40 AM 1/25/98 GMT0, Dan wrote:
>> Are
>> there stories of ghosts that have actually "felt" solid? Is light
>> reflected from it and is there a real image upon the retina? Or is
>> it merely an hallucination - albeit perhaps, psi generated?
[snip]
Thanks for the interesting reply Dan. But it leaves me with more
questions:
>... The oasts (sometimes called oast houses) have the characteristic
>conical roofs with white vanes on the top that you see travelling
>through Kent (Herefordshire has them as well but those are square in
>plan). Mostly built 150 years ago for drying hops for British "bitter"
>(the warm beer that takes a year to tolerate)
Sorry to digress but beer is my second favourite subject :) Of course
bitter should be warm - well at least room temp - else how can it be
quaffed? Yer can't quaff ice cold lager.
Back to business :)
[...]
>Within was a horrific sight that at first paralysed them. Propped in a
>chair and leaning against the table was a charred corpse, looking like
>a napalm victim. It had evidently been placed there as there was no
>damage to the furniture, but some flakes of charred flesh had fallen
>onto the table. The mother touched it to see if it was still warm; it
>was solid and stone cold.
>... They locked the door on the corpse and went to bed, except for
>the girlfriend, who said she could never stand the house anyway, and
>left for her flat in London.
>In the morning (surprised ?) the door was locked and the corpse had
>gone, with all traces.
Without indulging in further off-topic digressions about the wisdom of
their actions: this appears to verify that ghosts (if that's what it was) are
sometimes solid to the touch. But what would a psychic investigator
make of this?
How would the scenario have proceeded if the family had not left the
scene? What if, instead, the family had sat watching the corpse while
someone called the police. As Sarah points out it does seem rather
odd to go to bed leaving a corpse in the living room. I won't dwell on
that as there may have been more to this story than Dan could cover
in a short recount. Still it may be relevant as such behaviour could
be accounted for as due to subconcious disbelief in what they had
seen.
I'm not a psychologist but we have all heard of mass hysteria. Don't
get me wrong - I am not implying that there was no psychic component
in the above story - on the contrary, I am suggesting that the family
jointly and subconciously recognised the psi component and acted
accordingly.
>My reading of it was that the joining of the oasts by the doorway was
>the key.
>... the barn had been haunted - by a crazy labourer
>... The corpse had been a replay.
>When I cleared the house of him,
Dan, how could you? You got rid of a potentially fruitful source of
phenomena that might have helped investigators. Shame on you.
Brian
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date sent: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:50:45 +0000
Subject: Re: [Psi] What is a ghost?
Hi Brian,
>More specifically, what is an apparition?
>The story of the workman in the cellars of an old building in York,
>England who saw a troop of Roman soldiers march into the cellar
>and out the opposite wall is well known in the history of British
>paranormal folk lore.
A former fiance of mine, when he was a small child, used to see these
people (dressed like 17th century or so upper class types) dancing
through the walls of his hallway -- as if the hallway were actually
in the middle of a ballroom floor. His mother was always very
distressed at the things he saw.
>The mother was informed by telegram from the military authorities of
>his death which, ostensibly, had occurred at the exact time of the
>apparition.
Many, many stories like this. I dreamed very vividly that my mother
came and talked with me, told me she was going away, that she loved
me, etc. At the time, I had no reason to think she wasn't going to
get better (she was in the hospital) except perhaps subconscious info
from adults around me. (Nobody had ever died around me before so
the concept was pretty outside my experience.) I was brought out of
the dream by my 7am alarm for school. Nobody said anything that day
or night, but it seemed pretty real to me. The NEXT night my father
takes me up on a hill and tells me that my mother died in the morning
the day before. I cried because he cried. But I wasn't really sad
because I wasn't really surprised. It just seemed okay, I mean, she
and I had talked it over and I accepted it. (Though of course, this
didn't stop me from reacting to it for the next 10 years.)
>Yet other stories, numerous in the tome by Gurney Myers and
>Podmore "Phantasms of the Living", tell of apparitions of normal
>living people; not all in crisis by any means.
Non-local theories in physics should eventually explain this stuff.
I hope! Physicists ought to get more interesting then.
A physicist recently told me in an email:
"We know so little and good data is hard to get--mostly because the
way to get it is to put your life on the line. Physics is a very
timid inquiry compared to "exploring reality"."
>Whatever their various causes and origins may be, I wonder, to get
>right to the root of the problem, how real a ghost is.
First you have to define what "real" means to you.
Is a rock real? Sure. It's physical
A person? Less solid, but still real.
Water? Less solid, but still real.
Vapor/gases? Less solid, but still real -- if we think to measure
for the right one and find it.
What about X-Rays? Microwaves? Gamma rays?
The only reason we think they are real is because we (fairly recently
in terms of science) learned to measure them. Until then, they were
not real to us, nobody would have believed you, anyone talking about
them would have sounded like they were raving.
People talking about auras have been laughed at in the West for eons,
and now we have the technology to actually see them through that,
rather than only through people who are perhaps sensitive to that
spectrum. It didn't get less cosmic. We just finally explained it,
is all.
What defines solidity?
Physically, the difference between the vibratory rate of particles
which make up one object compared to another. Rocks are more solid
than water because the atoms/molecules of rocks vibrate faster than
the atoms/molecules of water. And may also be more densely packed.
At a fundamental level it is all simply energy.
What if something is "here" right next to us, but its vibratory rate
is so different than our own spectrum of measurement that it is not
physical to us? What if consciousness could deliberately alter the
vibratory rate of something? What if it could become "halfway
physical" to us? Not solid like a rock, not etheric like gamma rays,
but physical enough to feel?
>Are there stories of ghosts that have actually "felt" solid?
Sure. I've met plenty of entities that were at least partially solid
to my perception. The whole incubus/succubus thing throughout
history is another example of entities that can become "partially"
solid.
>Or is it merely an hallucination - albeit perhaps, psi generated?
Perhaps a filtered composite.
If a tree is simply energy, then our interpretation of how it feels,
smells, what it looks like, how hard it is, is merely a result of our
biological filter and perception. In truth that tree is just energy,
and 90+% air, at that. Yet we don't consider our interpretation of
it "wrong" just because our physicists know that our perception is
just that -- our perception, not the fundamental reality. Why?
Maybe because we all see trees. We don't all see ghosts. So does
that mean that "reality" has nothing to do with what is literally
perceivable but rather, has to do with "how big a percentage" of our
people perceive it?
PJ
From: "MaryD"
Date sent: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 21:22:35 +0000
Subject: Re: [Psi] Beliefs
> From: "PJ Gaenir"
> It was proving to me I was right of course -- only belief was causing
> the slowness of the process. Maybe that goes for all personal
> evolution.
We get a belief, label it, then spend a lifetime dragging around, the
suitcase of garbage we tie to it.
A good exercise is to ask, what do I need to unlearn today?
And then listen to yourself through the day, becausing... and then
examine that part of your self limiting beliefs.
I can't because.....
Oh, I couldn't say that.....
I couldn't do that.....
MaryD
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date sent: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:57:16 +0000
Subject: Re: [Psi] What is a ghost?
Hi Brian,
>Without indulging in further off-topic digressions about the wisdom
>of their actions: this appears to verify that ghosts (if that's
>what it was) are sometimes solid to the touch.
Perhaps for some period of time. I have never known of any entity
existing primarily outside our frequency to be "permanently" physical
in THIS frequency. Unless the Ghost & Mrs. Muir counts, and he
probably doesn't. ;-)
>How would the scenario have proceeded if the family had not left the
>scene? What if, instead, the family had sat watching the corpse
>while someone called the police. As Sarah points out it does seem
>rather odd to go to bed leaving a corpse in the living room.
Yes. It is. One comment element of many paranormal events is that
they are SO beyond the normal that people simply don't respond -- er,
"normally."
This always makes it more difficult when explaining it later....
PJ
Date sent: Mon, 26 Jan 98 22:47 GMT0
From: (Daniel Wilson)
Subject: Re: [Psi] Beliefs
PJ said:
> Do you think that the belief systems of the psi instructors is as
> much responsible as the belief systems of the students?
Psychic command is one of the great unseens in these affairs. It's why
James Randi takes command in his TV trials of psi and his fear of
anomalous faculties suppresses the participants' faculties. About six
months before he was due to do one on dowsers in London, it occurred to
me to "charm" whoever took part so that they would be unaffected.
Synchronistically, two of the dowsers who had been invited onto the
show decided they would protect themselves against what they saw as
Randi's "attack" (which of course I saw as an unwitting one) by
conducting an affirmation beforehand.
On the show, three of the four dowsing tests were conducted
successfully, although Randi attempted to manipulate the presentation
to make it appear they were inconclusive. (In fact, he attempted to
have the show pulled and the TV producer refused.) In his
autobiography, he produced a number of methods whereby the dowsers
could have cheated.
So yes, unless blocked (and one example of this was my Peruvian lady
whose built-in atavistic witchdoctor prevented her from straying into
his territory) the instructor is in charge. I'm very much of the view
that psychic faculties are induced as much as taught.
> Just so you know, basic remote viewing would not expect that type of
> data until quite into it, and people being able to tell you WHAT
> something is correctly would be rare enough; WHERE it is, is dowsing
> not RV (though often related); the PURPOSE is yet another thing; all
> of these are considered "intermediate" data in most RV training.
> Someone who can tell you that right off the top is probably an
> exceptional clairvoyant.
Coo, that's a lot of data you're not allowed to get ! What's
permissible, then ? I thought the name of the game was looking at a
satellite photo and saying something like: "This is an experimental
missile station. It's disguised as a normal silo. The lab is under
these trees and there's a concrete tunnel going across here. The
station complement is 121 men, the commander's name is Krupsky and he
has piles and a secret Swiss bank account." No ? What do you cut your
teeth on ?
> I also think it possible that all healing may work, contrary to
> popular belief, internally to the healer and not just "at" the
> patient. In other words, all healing is self-healing to some degree.
> Initially, like with powerful meditations, everything works great.
> Then the Self realizes that CHANGE IS IMPENDING and (a) suddenly the
> person can't seem to get around to meditating, and/or (b) when the
> person does, their focus is less, and their effects are less.
Yes, that's about it - fear of change, but also of stepping out of
line, upsetting people, being different.
> Archetype meditations are about the only thing I've found that really
> addresses the fundamental beliefs that one holds. Problem is they're
> so effective if done well that after a short time and on occasion
> miraculous results, from that point forward, getting yourself to DO
> them is like getting yourself to jump off a bridge. Your
> subconscious interprets it as some kind of death and won't let you
> near 'em. I could really use doing some of them and it's SO HARD
> it's just unbelievable.
That's fear rather than belief, but maybe the latter constructs a home
for the former.
Dan Wilson
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date sent: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:31:03 +0000
Subject: Re: [Psi] Beliefs
Hi Dan,
>Psychic command is one of the great unseens in these affairs.
Now this kind of brings us back to mesmerian hypnosis, does it not?
>So yes, unless blocked ... the instructor is in charge. I'm very
>much of the view that psychic faculties are induced as much as
>taught.
Interesting idea.
You know, there may be something to that, although I would say that
if it's true, it's true for the same reason as above: belief systems,
and the ability of some people to profoundly impact others in ways
that are nothing short of hypnotic (since as you know, hypnosis has
many modalities and certainly doesn't require a formal induction).
In magick most people would say that's so to varying degrees.
I know that many times, various teachers/gurus, channeled entities,
et al. have had a pretty profound impact on people and have sponsored
tremendous change in them just from one meeting. Because for that
moment, the person was able to BELIEVE, and able to sort of insert a
new line of code into their internal programming.
It doesn't really require that the teacher even be legit themselves.
One of the most inspiring videotapes I ever watched was of this woman
who channeled some entity named "Mafu," and was later (at least so I
heard) demonstrated to be fraudulent. I was crazy about her. Him.
Whatever. I don't give a rat's behind whether it's her subconscious,
or even her consciously-acted-out-for-money idea of "what an
enlightened being would sound like." I still resonated with what she
had to say. Why not? I could resonate with what my neighbor has to
say, it doesn't have to come from someone cosmic. (Or rather, all
people are.)
Another channel, supposedly of the "Pleiadians," inspired some
truly mind-blowing meditations (though I confess I was in a major
high-zone for that with or without her). And I consciously
LAUGHED at everything she had to say, and when I heard her voice
I laughed until I was breathless, her supposed entity-accent sounds
like Elmer Fudd. ;-) But hey, whatever works.
This suddenly reminds me of the saying, "Sometimes the worst people
give the best advice."
I have learned to say, "All doorways of evolution are equal."
Whatever works for the individual.....
>Coo, that's a lot of data you're not allowed to get !
Nnnnno, I said you weren't expected to get that TYPE of data until
intermediate stages of methods training (or if I didn't, I meant to).
I didn't say you weren't SUPPOSED to. ;-) Basic methods RV works on
the principle that different data is sort of.... er.... different
bandwidths or quantity of information. Basic gestalts (land / water
/ mountain / manmade / structure / that sort of thing) are thought to
be the easiest and usually the first data obtained; descriptives such
as physical things (colors / sounds / smells / etc.) next; then
shapes (as that gets into 3D stuff and is thought to be more
complex); then relationships -- both in terms of shape relationships
to each other and conceptual relationships -- and the relationships
point is where the intermediate level kicks in.
A good psychic will probably get a little bit of every kind of data
there is, and some will be wrong and some will be right. RV methods
training sort of trains people to structure the data they receive so
that it comes in a certain order and is handled a certain way. In
short -- you reprogram yourself. For good psychics, this is probably
a bad idea IMO. For people without any major talent, it's the only
way they're going to find what they have. I consider RV methods
training kind of like "enriched bread." First we beat out the
natural value, then we put back a pre-measured amount. So everything
is consistent, predictable, and works in tandem. It's great for
the average industrialized loaf. But for those rare loaves that for
some reason had a lot more vitamins than others, it was sure a loss.
>What's permissible, then ?
Any kind of data is permissible -- unless you're working in RV
methods structure in which case only the type of data for that phase
is permissible and it can only be communicated in the way specified.
But as far as basic remote viewing goes -- like done in the lab --
anything is permissible.
I just meant that the average person learning remote viewing does
good to get the gestalts right and a few descriptives, when they
first begin. If one expected them to be able to give you what's
considered all the intermediate data (conceptuals) up front, probably
one or two students in about 100 would succeed right off the bat.
Actually, in the lab, that's about the ratio. But in methods
training / applications, it's a more gradual process.
>What do you cut your teeth on ?
Students begin with the types of data, in the order given above, on
normal stuff for which there is feedback, so they (and their
subconscious) can see in detail what they got wrong or right. That
might be a photograph of a thing, a place, a person, et al.
>That's fear rather than belief, but maybe the latter constructs a
>home for the former.
Yeah, I think that's probably the best way to put it. Hey, when I
get some money (which will probably happen when I quit doing so damn
much work for barely anything or free!), I'll hire you to do some
work on my fear, ok? :-)
PJ
Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:52:55 GMT
From: Brian Oldham
Subject: Re: [Psi] Beliefs
At 09:22 PM 1/26/98 +0000, MaryD wrote:
>We get a belief, label it, then spend a lifetime dragging around, the
>suitcase of garbage we tie to it.
I like this Mary. Good point. It reminds me of my cousin Pamela's
husband. He once made a vow he would never, ever, wear a tie.
Not because he found them uncomfortable to wear, he said, but
because "they are an infringement of human rights" - or something
like that. Well, I don't know how many job interviews he failed
because of his stance against the social dress code but he stuck
to his word and even refused to wear a tie for his wedding. I don't
know what Pamela thought of him but her family were disgusted
and I think even his family were annoyed.
On retelling this tale some said he was to be commended for
standing up for something he believed in. It becomes clear that
in matters of merely shallow importance we often fail to look at
situations and their attendent consequenses in depth. Patrick
(that was his name) now had to live with his promise for the rest
of his life or lose face.
What a silly and pointless belief to saddle himself with. He was
hurting no one except himself. As moral stances go he was
pissing in the wind.
All this of course has little to do with psi, except that belief seems to
play an important role in the functioning of psi. It probably explains
why some apparitions are interpreted as the Virgin Mary, angels,
satan and other demons, Vishnu, Mother, Father, etc. You have
to wonder... if the ghost of the Virgin Mary really is poltering about
on earth, would she be recognised in Hyderabad...?
Brian
End Archive #008 January 1998
All the PSI Archives (incomplete):12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
| 