What is "out of body"?
Bernie Kovack
involve "soul travel"?
If it's the latter, would it be possible for two people who are propertly
trained to "meet up" and communicate?
URL's would be greatly appreciated. I spent a few hours googling and got
nowhere.
ClearTonal
==================
this is a very good question. The shamans of ancient Mexico also asked
it, and were not satisfied with conjectural answers. The physical body
seems to release something that has awareness, but what?
They found the answer in states of dreaming. They discovered that an
out-of-body experience is a dream state in which one's daily awareness
is transferred to his or her dreaming body, which is a real entity and
part of the total existence of every living being.
The Dreaming body is also known as the energy body. The energy body is
the counterpart of the physical body, which is actually an energy
sphere. The energy body is a configuration of pure aware energy, pure
Intent.
It has only appearance but no mass. Since it's pure energy, it can
perform acts that are beyond the possibilities of the physical body;
although the physical body is also pure energy, it is kept in a
specific shape that has specific abilities and limitations by the
fixation of what shamans called 'the assemblage point' on one
Location.
Dreaming is the art of tempering the energy body, of making it supple
and coherent by gradually exercising its capabilities.The true goal of
Dreaming is to perfect the energy body. Dreamers make a staggering
effort to direct the energy body through each stage of its
development.
A seer, at certain times, is not himself, but his Double. For each
seer there is another seer. A twin. Another 'Here'. One may say that
at times the seer is his twin.
The Other is the self. The Double is the seer himself, developed
through his Dreaming.
The Double is an Act of Power to a seer but only a Tale of Power to an
ordinary Man. Although it is arrived at through Dreaming, it is as
real as it can be. Actually no-one 'develops' a Double; that is only a
way of talking about it. All luminous beings have a Double. A seer
Learns to be aware of it, that's all. Ordinary men sometimes become
aware of it, due to natural dramatic circumstances, like near death,
war, drugs, etc.
There are seemingly insurmountable barriers protecting that awareness.
But that's expected; those barriers are what makes arriving at that
awareness such a unique challenge.
"My Teachers then turned my body around and pointed to a lump on the
ground. They pulled me closer to it and made me go around it. The lump
was a man lying on the ground. He was lying on his stomach with his
face turned to his right. They kept on pointing out the man to me as
they spoke. They pulled me and twisted me around him. I could not
focus my eyes on him at all, but finally I had a feeling of quietness
and sobriety and I looked at the man.
"I had a slow awakening into the realization that the man lying on the
ground was me. My realization did not bring any terror or discomfort.
I simply accepted it without emotion.
"My Teacher then said that we were going to go to the round Power
Place in the chaparral. As soon as he said it the image of the place
popped into my mind. I saw the dark masses of bushes around it. I
turned to my right. My Teachers were also there.
"It was as if I were drunk and did not have a firm grip on anything.
They grabbed me by the shoulders and shook me in unison. They ordered
me to wake up. I could hear their voices clearly and separately. I had
then a unique moment. I held two images in my mind, two Dreams. I felt
that something in me was deeply asleep and was waking up and I found
myself lying on the floor of the ramada with my Teachers shaking me.
But I also was at the Power Place and my Teachers were still shaking
me.
"There was one crucial instant in which I was neither in one place nor
the other, but I was rather in both places as an observer seeing two
scenes at once. I had the incredible sensation that at that instant I
could have gone either way. All I had to do at that moment was to
change perspective, and rather than watch either scene from the
outside, feel it from the point of view of the subject.
"Then I woke up at the ramada of my Teacher's house. They had drenched
me with cold water.
"Hours later we sat in the kitchen. They had insisted that I had to
proceed as if nothing had happened.
"My Teacher said, 'As I told you already, the Double has Inconceivable
Power. We wanted to show you something: the mystery of luminous beings
as Dreamers. You wanted to know about the Double. It begins in Dreams.
But then you asked, 'What is the Double?' And I said the Double is the
self. The self Dreams the Double. That should be simple, except that
there is nothing simple about us. Perhaps the ordinary dreams of the
self are simple, but that doesn't mean that the self is simple. Once
it has Learned to Dream the Double, the self arrives at this weird
crossroad, and a moment comes when one realizes that it is the Double
who Dreams the self.
The Lesson last night, as I told you, was about the Dreamer and the
Dreamed; or, who Dreams whom.
" 'Last night,' my Teacher proceeded, 'you almost chose to wake up at
the Power Place. That would have been the Feat. If you had not
indulged in your stupid ways, you would have had enough Power to tip
the scales; and you would've, no doubt, scared yourself to death.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, as the case may be, you did not have
enough Power. In fact, you wasted your Power in worthless confusion to
the point that you almost didn't have enough to survive. So, as you
may very well understand, to indulge in your little quirks is not only
stupid and wasteful, but also injurious. A warrior that drains himself
cannot live. The body is not an indestructible affair. You might have
gotten gravely ill. You didn't, simply because we deviated some of
your crap.'
"The full impact of his words was beginning to take hold of me.
'Last night we Guided you through the Intricacies of the Double," he
went on. And it was not a vision or a hallucination when you saw
yourself lying on the ground. You could have realized that with
infinite clarity if you had not gotten lost in your indulging. And you
could have Known then that you yourself are a Dream; that your Double
is Dreaming you in the same fashion that you Dreamed him last night.'
" 'But how can that be possible?'
" 'No one Knows how it happens. We only Know that it does happen.
That's the mystery of us as luminous beings. Last night you had two
Dreams and you could have awakened in either one, but you didn't have
enough Power even to Understand that.'
They looked at me fixedly for a moment.
'I think he Understands,' said my other Teacher."
The Double comes out when all the Dreaming Gates are opened, after the
Double has been Completed in Dreaming. Then the seer has Inconceivable
Possibilities at his fingertips.
I hope this helps.
Warm regards
ClearTonal
ClearTonal
================
It is indeed possible for two Dreamers or two people experiencing out-
of-body to meet up. The presence of another Dreamer just seems to spur
this to happen. It is a matter of synchronizing the positions of two
or more assemblage points to achieve the same Spot or Position on the
luminous sphere that the physical body really is.
I do not know what a 'soul' is. As I understand it, it is an invention
of religion. Or it may be a way of talking about the Dreaming body, or
the pure awareness that leaves the body at death. Shamans tend not to
use this word as it is so ambiguous, having been used in so many ways
by so many institutions (religions, etc) through the ages. In my
understanding, if the soul leaves the body, one is dead. That is
clearly not the case with out-of-body. So what goes out of the body is
not the soul, if indeed such an entity even exists.
warm regards
ClearTonal
David Mitchell
> On May 31, 6:49 pm, "Bernie Kovack" <bk2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Is an "out of body" experience nothing more than a lucid dream, or does it
>> involve "soul travel"?
>>
>> If it's the latter, would it be possible for two people who are propertly
>> trained to "meet up" and communicate?
>>
>> URL's would be greatly appreciated. I spent a few hours googling and got
>> nowhere.
>
> ==================
>
> this is a very good question. The shamans of ancient Mexico also asked
> it, and were not satisfied with conjectural answers. The physical body
> seems to release something that has awareness, but what?
> They found the answer in states of dreaming. They discovered that an
> out-of-body experience is a dream state in which one's daily awareness
> is transferred to his or her dreaming body, which is a real entity and
> part of the total existence of every living being.
>
>
> Warm regards
> ClearTonal
If I'm right, these unattributed quotes are from Carlos Castenada.
What you have to remember is that Casteneda made it all up.
Hope /this/ helps.
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================
David Mitchell
> Is an "out of body" experience nothing more than a lucid dream, or does it
> involve "soul travel"?
Nobody knows for sure, although the evidence suggests that it's little
more than a lucid dream, or a Temporal Lobe hallucination.
> If it's the latter, would it be possible for two people who are propertly
> trained to "meet up" and communicate?
If it's the latter, then it seems likely. However, as far as I know,
none of the various simple tests of the reality of the experience; that
myself and others of a sceptical nature have proposed, in this forum, to
those who believe themselves capable of out of body experiences have
ever been undertaken satisfactorily.
You may draw whatever conclusion you wish from this; but, for myself, I
draw the simplest - that the experience is purely subjective, and,
therefore, less interesting that I would have hoped.
ClearTonal
>
> - Show quoted text -
yes these quotes are from CC. Did he? Opinions vary, and if you were
to try it out, you would find that the techniques do indeed work. If
you do not make the attempt to verify, your opinion is only a second-
hand agreement, and that is not worth much. No offense. Peace to you
and yours.
warm regards
Cleartonal
Richard
it was a dream. When I have an OOBE, it always feels like it is really
happening. that is the basic difference for me.
As far as meeting with someone in this condition, it sure seems possible to
me. For more details about my experiences, see the link below. --
My story begins on page 49 of this pdf file
http://www.outofbodytravel.org/images/Journal_-_Issue_Eleven.pdf
Richard
"SETI@home" is a scientific experiment that uses Internet-connected
computers in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). You can
participate by running a free program that downloads and analyzes radio
telescope data.
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu
"Bernie Kovack" <bk2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Vx60k.572$b_.567@trnddc02...
David Mitchell
Yes, he did.
> Opinions vary,
Not much. Take a look at the wikipedia article.
> and if you were
> to try it out, you would find that the techniques do indeed work.
In what sense? Have they been tested in any onjective way? Or do they
work in the same way that many mystical techniques work, simply because
what they offer is completely subjective and can be explained by the
belief of the practitioner that they do?
> If
> you do not make the attempt to verify, your opinion is only a second-
> hand agreement, and that is not worth much.
It seems to me, that the person making the claims should provide the
evidence.
ClearTonal
Hi David,
lol dude, i'm here to testify to the efficacy of the techniques;
unfortunately, there is no evidence of an objectiove nature, because
the experience is internal. can you objectively witness inner silence
and seeing? of course not, but you can experience these states.
Fortunately, i'm not here to convince the skeptics. They will never
attempt to verify, they prefer instead to read wikipedia... please try
to get this, if you attempt to sincerely try, you are rewarded with
results. if you don't, you can believe whatever you want...beliefs are
like that. only experience counts. then you can see for yourself if
it's real or not. you are free to believe whatever you want. i have
experience and i can tell you it works, big time. if someone wants to
know, fine, i'll offer my help. if someone wants to dis, also fine,
i'm not here to convince you. i can't, because you won't be convinced;
and it doesn't matter at all. but i can offer you the tools to see for
yourself. peace to you. lets leave it at that, if you are unmoveable.
anything else would be a waste of time for us both.
warm regards,
cleartonal
David Mitchell
Yes, and you can devise experiments to see which techniques work best
for inducing them.
Or you can just accept the unsupported word of a known fantasist.
> Fortunately, i'm not here to convince the skeptics. They will never
> attempt to verify, they prefer instead to read wikipedia...
How heinous, actually attempting to verify the facts. Whatever next -
thinking for oneself?
> please try
> to get this, if you attempt to sincerely try, you are rewarded with
> results. if you don't, you can believe whatever you want...beliefs are
> like that. only experience counts. then you can see for yourself if
> it's real or not. you are free to believe whatever you want. i have
> experience and i can tell you it works, big time. if someone wants to
> know, fine, i'll offer my help. if someone wants to dis, also fine,
> i'm not here to convince you. i can't, because you won't be convinced;
> and it doesn't matter at all. but i can offer you the tools to see for
> yourself. peace to you. lets leave it at that, if you are unmoveable.
> anything else would be a waste of time for us both.
You are rather missing the point; and conflating two issues.
Firstly, I'm happy that these techniques work for you; but the fact that
they do does not vindicate Casteneda, as it has not been shown that
there is anything special about his techniques which make them work.
You therefore cannot use the fact that they work for you as proof that
anything else Casteneda says is true.
ClearTonal
Hi David,
I meant that thinking 4 oneself and verifying the facts is good and
should be done. You seem 2 be saying I meant the opposite; please
reread my post. Also, every preacher could be tarred with the epithet
'known fanaticist'; so could anyone. Even you...?
To verify is to see for oneself what works and what doesn't. That is
the experiement and yes, it should be conducted scientifically. Every
step is a risk to one's life, and the decision to take one step after
another is done only as a warrior, putting your life on the line in
the face of death. There is a gradual arc through the process, first
achieving impeccability (saving and redeploying your energy), then
achieving inner silence, and then seeing energy directly. Through this
very scientific process we learn the art of dreaming, or intending in
the second attention, and this leads to Total Freedom which is very
much worth having. Dreaming and the effects of inner silence are there
for everyone, but only if they open their minds and actually attempt
to verify the teachings. Don't just agree or disagree, if you only do
this you are not qualified to pass judgment. It's like a man who talks
about what it's like in, say, India, without ever having gone there.
Rather, reach inner silence. Then let me know what your conclusion is.
You sound very intelligent and sincere. I do respect that. But I have
made my decision, in the face of my death. Please respect that. And
accept that I am honestly attesting to the fact that these techniques
have delivered for me what they purported to deliver, and then some.
Maybe you could support my trying to help others who are also
sincerely attempting to learn. That would be great!
You may have the agenda of shutting down my input to this discussion
thread by arguing until i go away. I therefore say that I feel that
I've made myself clear, and will not respond to any further
communiques from you, David, unless they are queries into the process
itself. Then I will be only too happy to help. Peace and prosperity to
you.
Warm regards,
Clear tonal.
David Mitchell
>
> Hi David,
>
> I meant that thinking 4 oneself and verifying the facts is good and
> should be done. You seem 2 be saying I meant the opposite; please
> reread my post. Also, every preacher could be tarred with the epithet
> 'known fanaticist'; so could anyone. Even you...?
That's "fantasist".
> To verify is to see for oneself what works and what doesn't. That is
> the experiement and yes, it should be conducted scientifically.
> Don't just agree or disagree, if you only do
> this you are not qualified to pass judgment. It's like a man who talks
> about what it's like in, say, India, without ever having gone there.
You are so far from getting my point that I tend to agree: further
discussion is pointless.
> Maybe you could support my trying to help others who are also
> sincerely attempting to learn. That would be great!
Why would I send people to fabricated teachings?
>
> You may have the agenda of shutting down my input to this discussion
> thread by arguing until i go away.
So, you're going to solve the problem of being made to "go away", by
going away?
Hilarious.
hermes
http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe.html is worth looking at
http://louisobe.homestead.com/files/Big_Picture.htm
is the personal diary of an astral explorer
http://www.iacworld.org/
is the site of an institution founded by the brazilian explorer Waldo
Vieira
Also, there are some interesting books on the subject, for instance:
Rober Monroe, Journeys out of the Body (and two subsequent books)
Susan Blackmore, Beyond the Body
I hope this helps.
David Mitchell
> On May 31, 7:49 am, "Bernie Kovack" <bk2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Is an "out of body" experience nothing more than a lucid dream, or does it
>> involve "soul travel"?
> Also, there are some interesting books on the subject, for instance:
> Rober Monroe, Journeys out of the Body (and two subsequent books)
> Susan Blackmore, Beyond the Body
FWIW, Susan Blackmore no longer believes that OBE's represent anything
more than an anomolous state of mind, despite having had one.
hermes
> FWIW, Susan Blackmore no longer believes that OBE's represent anything
> more than an anomolous state of mind, despite having had one.
You mean anomalous.
That is correct. Actually, this is more or less the conclusion of the
cited book.
I include it in the list because I think it contains a lot of useful
information,
just like other references I have given.
David Mitchell
> On Jun 6, 4:48 pm, David Mitchell <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> FWIW, Susan Blackmore no longer believes that OBE's represent anything
>> more than an anomolous state of mind, despite having had one.
>
> You mean anomalous.
Indeed.
Piccolo Pete
"David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g1rmit$paj$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Bernie Kovack wrote:
>> Is an "out of body" experience nothing more than a lucid dream, or does
>> it involve "soul travel"?
>
> Nobody knows for sure, although the evidence suggests that it's little
> more than a lucid dream, or a Temporal Lobe hallucination.
>
>> If it's the latter, would it be possible for two people who are propertly
>> trained to "meet up" and communicate?
>
> If it's the latter, then it seems likely. However, as far as I know, none
> of the various simple tests of the reality of the experience; that myself
> and others of a sceptical nature have proposed, in this forum, to those
> who believe themselves capable of out of body experiences have ever been
> undertaken satisfactorily.
>
> You may draw whatever conclusion you wish from this; but, for myself, I
> draw the simplest - that the experience is purely subjective, and,
> therefore, less interesting that I would have hoped.
Tests done with Robert Monroe and some others indicate that it may be
something other than a lucid dream due to the lack of REM and the difference
in EEG patterns.
A Temporal Lobe "Hallucination" is a reasonable suggestion, but not
reasonable enough to close the book on the subject.
Quantum Physics and String Theory indicate there are a number of dimensions
beyond what we normally perceive. The OOBE may very well be a tool that can
be used to study these dimensions directly. If not that, then at least it
can be used to study the nervous system and learn to control certain
autonomous functions.
There are hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur astronomers, yet
only a relative handfull of them are able to peer into the depths of the
universe. All of life is subjective perception of only a fraction of a huge
reality we cannot (yet?) comprehend. It wasn't until 1925 that it became
common knowledge that other galaxies exist beyond the Milky Way. Should we
stop our search for answers simply because they aren't handed to us on a
silver platter? I think not.
Just because a bunch of undisciplined amateurs in a newsgroup cannot provide
satisfaction to a skeptic (which, by the way, is not their responsibility),
doesn't mean a certain reality doesn't exist.
Bart
Piccolo Pete
> > If
>> you do not make the attempt to verify, your opinion is only a second-
>> hand agreement, and that is not worth much.
>
> It seems to me, that the person making the claims should provide the
> evidence.
It may very well "seem" that way to you and you would be correct if the goal
of the claimant was fame and fortune (as in the case of CC). On the other
hand some of CC's meditative techniques do work and some of the results are
similar.
Since this newsgroup is dedicated to the study of the OOB phenomena. Any
claims made here do not require evidence. Even when evidence is given, it
is usually and unnecessarily stomped all over by a skeptic.
For instance, at one point in this newsgroup I described a precognitive
dream in which I had a cast on my left hand. I had never had a broken bone
or a cast anywhere on my body so why should I dream of such a thing? In the
dream, I knew I did not have a broken bone. A day later, I ripped my left
hand open with a faulty power tool. There were no broken bones but it was
so badly ripped up they couldn't even stitch it together, so they put a cast
on it. When I told the nurse of my dream, he just laughed it off.
How do I provide hard evidence for something like that? Why is it
necessary? Does my inability to provide evidence prove that it didn't
happen or, at the very most, it was merely a coincidence? Why hadn't I had
a dream of casts before or after the event? I cannot reproduce that
situation because it was most likely caused by an impending trauma.
The scientific method requires that something can be duplicated to be real.
Snowflakes are unique and cannot be duplicated - but they do exist as a
whole.
Or how about when I was becoming very close to a female poster in another
group. I described to her an experience of travelling (astrally) to her
place and seeing a boy in a boy scout uniform standing in a fenced backyard.
I also noted there was dog poop in the yard. She freaked and told me she
had a son in the boy scouts and that they had a dog. I was unaware of this
prior to my relating the experience to her.
There were several experiences with this woman and I think it may have had
something to do with the fact that we loved each other but were kept apart
by many miles so that all I could do was put myself mentally with her -
instead of physically. The second event involved a swim suit. She told me
she was going with the boy scouts for a day at a river. She did not tell me
she was going swimming, but I suppose I could have simply assumed that. I
contemplated on her the day of her trip and saw her walking along a river
bed in a black one piece swim suit with a stripe from left shoulder to her
right hip. When I told her of the vision, she freaked again and accused me
of having her stalked. Note here, I didn't tell her I saw the stripe. She
said I was very close, but that I had not seen the stripe. I did not bother
to tell her that I had, indeed, seen the stripe.
At another time in a chat room I was chatting with her and she decided to
test me. "What am I wearing?", she asked. I sat back, contemplated, and
saw her sitting at a computer in what appeared to be a very long, sky blue
T-shirt, with little patches of yellow circles on it. She didn't freak this
time, "Hit... oversized sky blue T-shirt with yellow smiley faces all over
it. I wear it as a nightgown."
There were other interesting situations with her, but this post is already
too long.
Can I duplicate this stuff? I doubt it. I was highly emotionally involved
with her and in a constant state of altered consciousness at the time due to
a divorce. I don't care to go through that kind of trauma again just to
satisfy some stone-brained skeptics. They wouldn't believe it anyway and
would say it was all coincidences or lucky guesses. That's the problem with
this kind of research, because it is of a spiritual nature and skeptics
cannot respect spirituality.
Do I need to prove these claims to anyone? No, I don't, but they are proof
to me and I will continue to believe in the reality of other dimensions.
Bart
David Mitchell
> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:g20daa$nd$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> If
>>> you do not make the attempt to verify, your opinion is only a second-
>>> hand agreement, and that is not worth much.
>> It seems to me, that the person making the claims should provide the
>> evidence.
>
> It may very well "seem" that way to you and you would be correct if the goal
> of the claimant was fame and fortune (as in the case of CC). On the other
> hand some of CC's meditative techniques do work and some of the results are
> similar.
What do you mean by "work"?
Do they "work" in ways that other meditative techniques do not?
If so, what is unique about them, and why it it unique?
And so on. Surely you can see that investigating the phenomenon is much
more useful than simply accepting it at face value.
As to why the person making the claims should provide the proof, if you
think about it, that's the only way it could work.
> Since this newsgroup is dedicated to the study of the OOB phenomena. Any
> claims made here do not require evidence. Even when evidence is given, it
> is usually and unnecessarily stomped all over by a skeptic.
Do you know what "Study" means?
"research or a detailed examination and analysis of a subject,
phenomenon, etc."
"application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading,
investigation, or reflection"
And so on. Skepical analysis is part of that process, or you're wasting
your time.
> How do I provide hard evidence for something like that?
You record your dreams, classify the events in them, and try to identify
all the times that the events happen, versus all the times they don't.
You could also have a third party with a similar lifestyle to yours try
to match the dream events against their lives.
See if the difference in the number of matches is statistically significant.
Conincidences happen, you have to filter them out somehow. Trying the
above might be a first step (although it's far from usable as is).
> Why is it necessary?
You are claiming to have had a precognitive dream. You simply do not
have enough evidence to reasonably make that claim.
If being believed by non-believers matters to you, then evidence is what
you need. If it doesn't, then you don't.
But, in general, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
> Does my inability to provide evidence prove that it didn't
> happen or, at the very most, it was merely a coincidence?
No; but it doesn't eliminate coincidence as an explanation.
> The scientific method requires that something can be duplicated to be real.
> Snowflakes are unique and cannot be duplicated - but they do exist as a
> whole.
That's a silly argument. Unique crystals of ice can be duplicated at
will; and that's all snowflakes are.
> Or how about when I was becoming very close to a female poster in another
> group. I described to her an experience of travelling (astrally) to her
> place and seeing a boy in a boy scout uniform standing in a fenced backyard.
> I also noted there was dog poop in the yard. She freaked and told me she
> had a son in the boy scouts and that they had a dog. I was unaware of this
> prior to my relating the experience to her.
Without seeing a transcript of all your conversations with her, it's
impossible to eliminate that possibility that she mentioned her son, the
scout, or the dog. By far the most likely possibility.
<snip>
And so on.
> Can I duplicate this stuff? I doubt it. I was highly emotionally involved
> with her and in a constant state of altered consciousness at the time due to
> a divorce. I don't care to go through that kind of trauma again just to
> satisfy some stone-brained skeptics. They wouldn't believe it anyway and
> would say it was all coincidences or lucky guesses. That's the problem with
> this kind of research, because it is of a spiritual nature and skeptics
> cannot respect spirituality.
We believe that there are certain states of mind which convey
experiences with emotional and other components which society describes
as "spiritual", because there is strong evidence for them.
But we do not accept that these states have any stronger meaning;
because there's no evidence for it.
> Do I need to prove these claims to anyone? No, I don't, but they are proof
> to me and I will continue to believe in the reality of other dimensions.
You are free to be as irrational as you wish; my point concerns society
in general.
David Mitchell
> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:g1rmit$paj$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Bernie Kovack wrote:
>>> Is an "out of body" experience nothing more than a lucid dream, or does
>>> it involve "soul travel"?
>> Nobody knows for sure, although the evidence suggests that it's little
>> more than a lucid dream, or a Temporal Lobe hallucination.
>>
>>> If it's the latter, would it be possible for two people who are propertly
>>> trained to "meet up" and communicate?
>> If it's the latter, then it seems likely. However, as far as I know, none
>> of the various simple tests of the reality of the experience; that myself
>> and others of a sceptical nature have proposed, in this forum, to those
>> who believe themselves capable of out of body experiences have ever been
>> undertaken satisfactorily.
>>
>> You may draw whatever conclusion you wish from this; but, for myself, I
>> draw the simplest - that the experience is purely subjective, and,
>> therefore, less interesting that I would have hoped.
>
> Tests done with Robert Monroe and some others indicate that it may be
> something other than a lucid dream due to the lack of REM and the difference
> in EEG patterns.
You are right, more research needs to be done.
> A Temporal Lobe "Hallucination" is a reasonable suggestion, but not
> reasonable enough to close the book on the subject.
You are right, more research needs to be done.
> Quantum Physics and String Theory indicate there are a number of dimensions
> beyond what we normally perceive.
You want to be careful with those buzz-words
> The OOBE may very well be a tool that can be used to study these
dimensions directly.
> If not that, then at least it
> can be used to study the nervous system and learn to control certain
> autonomous functions.
You are right, more research needs to be done.
> There are hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur astronomers, yet
> only a relative handfull of them are able to peer into the depths of the
> universe. All of life is subjective perception of only a fraction of a huge
> reality we cannot (yet?) comprehend. It wasn't until 1925 that it became
> common knowledge that other galaxies exist beyond the Milky Way. Should we
> stop our search for answers simply because they aren't handed to us on a
> silver platter? I think not.
How can you talk about the "search for answers" in one post, and then
decry the need for research and evidence in others?
In 200 years the scientific method, in various forms, has taken us from
banging the rocks together to splitting the atom. 2000 years of astral
navel-gazing has led us precisely nowhere nearer to understanding OBE.
> Just because a bunch of undisciplined amateurs in a newsgroup cannot provide
> satisfaction to a skeptic (which, by the way, is not their responsibility),
So much for the "search for answers".
Piccolo Pete
> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:g20daa$nd$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> some of CC's meditative techniques do work and some of the results are
>> similar.
>
> What do you mean by "work"?
> Do they "work" in ways that other meditative techniques do not?
> If so, what is unique about them, and why it it unique?
I would say it has to do with the power of suggestion and the symbology he
uses. "Unique" is not a word that I would use in his situation. I'd like
to make it a point here that I am not a big fan of Castenada. As I said,
his goal appears to have been fame and fortune, as was Paul Twitchell's, L.
Ron Hubbard's, and others. These people may have had a glimpse of an
internal reality and some of there writings can help someone in their
meditative studies, but they have mislead many - even to the point of
suicide. So I don't support more than a fraction of what they say.
> And so on. Surely you can see that investigating the phenomenon is much
> more useful than simply accepting it at face value.
Of course. That is what this newsgroup is supposed to be about. The
problem is, in the past this newsgroup was attacked by some insane skeptics
who were incredibly rude and abusive to the point it destroyed the core of
the NG. As I continue to read your posts I've come to the conclusion you do
not fall into that category. There are a lot of misconceptions on the
subject of OOBE. The very name is, in my opinion, incorrect and misleading.
It is not "out of body" - it is a shift in consciousness.
> As to why the person making the claims should provide the proof, if you
> think about it, that's the only way it could work.
>> Since this newsgroup is dedicated to the study of the OOB phenomena. Any
>> claims made here do not require evidence. Even when evidence is given,
>> it is usually and unnecessarily stomped all over by a skeptic.
>
> Do you know what "Study" means?
When this NG was in its hayday, the intent was to honestly relate
experiences and suggest methods. Readers compared notes with the writers.
This is a form of study.
> "research or a detailed examination and analysis of a subject, phenomenon,
> etc."
> "application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading,
> investigation, or reflection"
Did I miss something?
> And so on. Skepical analysis is part of that process, or you're wasting
> your time.
Certainly, that is why I reject the words of many who seek fame and fortune.
It is fairly easy to see when they are attempting to lead one astray. It is
when they start saying that they are a "Master" and that their Way is the
only way. This NG was not an NG full of blind faith followers. We chased
off a number of wannabe "Masters" and false prophets.
>> How do I provide hard evidence for something like that?
>
> You record your dreams, classify the events in them, and try to identify
> all the times that the events happen, versus all the times they don't.
And who would be the judge as to whether I was lying about the records?
> You could also have a third party with a similar lifestyle to yours try to
> match the dream events against their lives.
>
> See if the difference in the number of matches is statistically
> significant.
Is 100% statistically significant? That is the way it was with the woman I
was talking about. Also, if I have a precognitive dream and move to avoid
the situation, wouldn't that score a miss? So I could be right 100% of the
time but my score would be zero because I avoided the trauma...
> Conincidences happen, you have to filter them out somehow. Trying the
> above might be a first step (although it's far from usable as is).
>
> > Why is it necessary?
>
> You are claiming to have had a precognitive dream. You simply do not have
> enough evidence to reasonably make that claim.
I related a true story to a newsgroup of interested readers. Do you think I
am expecting some kind of praise or monetary benefit? No, it is simply food
for thought on topic in this NG.
> If being believed by non-believers matters to you, then evidence is what
> you need. If it doesn't, then you don't.
It doesn't. What does matter, though, is when somebody like PZ comes in
here and starts ripping the place apart with ignorant demands for proof. It
destroys the focus and intent of the group.
> But, in general, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If I were to make a claim like this in a skeptic newsgroup I should be
expected to provide the proper evidence but I don't go near those newsgroups
because they make me want to puke.
> > Does my inability to provide evidence prove that it didn't
>> happen or, at the very most, it was merely a coincidence?
>
> No; but it doesn't eliminate coincidence as an explanation.
That was a lot of coincidences with no misses...
>> Or how about when I was becoming very close to a female poster in another
>> group. I described to her an experience of travelling (astrally) to her
>> place and seeing a boy in a boy scout uniform standing in a fenced
>> backyard. I also noted there was dog poop in the yard. She freaked and
>> told me she had a son in the boy scouts and that they had a dog. I was
>> unaware of this prior to my relating the experience to her.
>
> Without seeing a transcript of all your conversations with her, it's
> impossible to eliminate that possibility that she mentioned her son, the
> scout, or the dog. By far the most likely possibility.
But that isn't true. She didn't want to scare me off by telling me she had
a kid. That was four computers ago. I still have the hard drive with those
emails on it, but since I don't need to prove to you what I know to be true,
I'm not going to bother wasting an entire day digging through that stuff.
>> Can I duplicate this stuff? I doubt it. I was highly emotionally
>> involved with her and in a constant state of altered consciousness at the
>> time due to a divorce. I don't care to go through that kind of trauma
>> again just to satisfy some stone-brained skeptics. They wouldn't believe
>> it anyway and would say it was all coincidences or lucky guesses. That's
>> the problem with this kind of research, because it is of a spiritual
>> nature and skeptics cannot respect spirituality.
>
> We believe that there are certain states of mind which convey experiences
> with emotional and other components which society describes as
> "spiritual", because there is strong evidence for them.
>
> But we do not accept that these states have any stronger meaning; because
> there's no evidence for it.
I have no clue of the meaning behind what you just said.
>> Do I need to prove these claims to anyone? No, I don't, but they are
>> proof to me and I will continue to believe in the reality of other
>> dimensions.
>
> You are free to be as irrational as you wish; my point concerns society in
> general.
Oh, you want to save society from people like me... It would be different
if I were standing on a moutaintop shouting, "Give me money and I will teach
you how to spy on your spouse!" But I'm not doing that. I'm simply
relating on-topic stories in a specific newsgroup to interested readers.
Piccolo Pete
> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:g1rmit$paj$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Quantum Physics and String Theory indicate there are a number of
>> dimensions beyond what we normally perceive.
>
> You want to be careful with those buzz-words
"Buzz-words"? Thirty years ago those were "buzz words" that could damage a
physicist's career. Now they are valid fields of research. Why the hell
should I be carefull with such comments? The common man on the street would
say that there are only 3 dimensions. Incorrect - time is a dimension.
Does that mean there are only 4? No... what about density? What about
potential? What about awareness? Love? Does it stop there? I don't think
so - that is why I'm in this newsgroup. Why are you here if you refuse to
listen to what the hell we are talking about? Why the hell do you think we
have such a problem with skeptics? It is because they don't listen to the
answers we provide to their questions. They are unecessarily rude, abusive,
disruptive, and quite often just plain ignorant.
All throughout history, skeptics have been proven wrong. Do I need to list
5000 examples? I don't think so - I'm sure you already know the track
record of your ancestry...
Will we prove you wrong here? I think it is a strong probability but it
will take one of the myriad of dimensions - time.
>> There are hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur astronomers,
>> yet only a relative handfull of them are able to peer into the depths of
>> the universe. All of life is subjective perception of only a fraction of
>> a huge reality we cannot (yet?) comprehend. It wasn't until 1925 that it
>> became common knowledge that other galaxies exist beyond the Milky Way.
>> Should we stop our search for answers simply because they aren't handed
>> to us on a silver platter? I think not.
>
> How can you talk about the "search for answers" in one post, and then
> decry the need for research and evidence in others?
Did I really decry the need for research? Every person in this NG who
practices some form of OOBE is doing personal research in an attempt to
prove it to their self. We don't have the desire, time, resources, or
energy to attempt to convince skeptics of our personal truths. You seem to
make it clear that you have no desire to study yourself as we do. Not our
fault, but yours. Not our loss, but yours. You certainly don't show
yourself to be an explorer and if you don't have some kind of lab with an
eeg machine, I can't even suggest you are doing serious research. You
simply reveal yourself as a troll.
> In 200 years the scientific method, in various forms, has taken us from
> banging the rocks together to splitting the atom. 2000 years of astral
> navel-gazing has led us precisely nowhere nearer to understanding OBE.
Incorrect. It was the altered state of consciousness that brought science
and the scientific method forward through the dark ages. Dickheads in the
form of skeptics and power mongers tried to suppress it. As I said before,
sometimes skeptics are just plain ignorant. Sometimes they are control
freaks in a skeptic costume. The dimensions available to awareness are so
vast we may never experience them all. That doesn't mean you are correct.
Madam Blavatski produced a paper from an altered state which described the
nature of charged particles long before someone else received the nobel
prize for reaching the same conclusion. The nature of benzene was shown in
a dream. Numerous literary masterpieces also came from dreams. Patton,
Napoleon, and I think even Hitler believed they were reincarnated warriors
of the past. George Washington had a vision of the future with vast
highways and vehicles unknown to him travelling on them. The number of
discoveries and the amount of incredible creative genius that comes from the
altered state of consciousness fills our libraries. I suggest you can't see
the forest because all the trees are blocking your view.
>> Just because a bunch of undisciplined amateurs in a newsgroup cannot
>> provide satisfaction to a skeptic (which, by the way, is not their
>> responsibility),
> So much for the "search for answers".
You want answers? You wanna do some serious research? I flat out told you
that quite often people who are going through severe emotional and/or
physical trauma quite often live in an altered state of concsiousness. That
is a fact you can research. Anyone who has lost a loved one will tell you
they live in a sort of dream state or liquid reality. Isn't that a solid
base on which to continue your research? Go to the alt.support groups and
harrass them for some of their unusual experiences. Then call them liars
unless they provide you with proof. That shouldn't be so difficult for you
since that is exactly what you are doing here.
Bart
Piccolo Pete
> FWIW, Susan Blackmore no longer believes that OBE's represent anything
> more than an anomolous state of mind, despite having had one.
Hmmm... One single person has one single OBE and suddenly she is an expert
on the entire subject. But thousands of other people have multiple
experiences and their comments are useless. What a bunch of crap.
Bart
David Mitchell
> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:g47ldi$fs3$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:g1rmit$paj$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>> Quantum Physics and String Theory indicate there are a number of
>>> dimensions beyond what we normally perceive.
>> You want to be careful with those buzz-words
>
> "Buzz-words"? Thirty years ago those were "buzz words" that could damage a
> physicist's career. Now they are valid fields of research. Why the hell
> should I be carefull with such comments?
Because you don't know what you're talking about.
> The common man on the street would
> say that there are only 3 dimensions. Incorrect - time is a dimension.
> Does that mean there are only 4? No... what about density? What about
> potential? What about awareness? Love?
And there's the proof.
> Does it stop there? I don't think
> so - that is why I'm in this newsgroup. Why are you here if you refuse to
> listen to what the hell we are talking about?
I'm listening; but you're not making sense.
> Why the hell do you think we have such a problem with skeptics?
Because they catch you out when you're talking nonsense.
> It is because they don't listen to the
> answers we provide to their questions. They are unecessarily rude, abusive,
> disruptive, and quite often just plain ignorant.
At least I know when to use the right buzz-words ;-)
>
> All throughout history, skeptics have been proven wrong. Do I need to list
> 5000 examples? I don't think so - I'm sure you already know the track
> record of your ancestry...
Skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method; which is by far and
away the most powerful method mankind has ever invented for discovering
the truth about the way the universe works.
> Will we prove you wrong here? I think it is a strong probability but it
> will take one of the myriad of dimensions - time.
Speaking of time; you've been having these experiences for something
like thirty years, and you still haven't even discovered to even a legal
level of proof whether it's subjectively or objectively real.
> Did I really decry the need for research? Every person in this NG who
> practices some form of OOBE is doing personal research in an attempt to
> prove it to their self. We don't have the desire, time, resources, or
> energy to attempt to convince skeptics of our personal truths. You seem to
> make it clear that you have no desire to study yourself as we do.
So the daily meditation for the past thirty years doesn't count then?
> Not our
> fault, but yours. Not our loss, but yours. You certainly don't show
> yourself to be an explorer
Why is it that you think you know anything about me, on the basis of a
few exchanges on usenet?
> and if you don't have some kind of lab with an
> eeg machine, I can't even suggest you are doing serious research. You
> simply reveal yourself as a troll.
I've only had two OBE's so I can't experiment directly on myself; but I
can suggest experiments to others who do have the experiences - which is
what I do.
Oddly enough, none of them seem to be interested in following up.
>
>> In 200 years the scientific method, in various forms, has taken us from
>> banging the rocks together to splitting the atom. 2000 years of astral
>> navel-gazing has led us precisely nowhere nearer to understanding OBE.
>
> Incorrect. It was the altered state of consciousness that brought science
> and the scientific method forward through the dark ages.
Rubbish.
> Madam Blavatski produced a paper from an altered state which described the
> nature of charged particles long before someone else received the nobel
> prize for reaching the same conclusion.
Without a means of proving her ideas were correct, they were useless.
That's the point of science.
> The nature of benzene was shown in a dream.
And then verified experimentally.
> Numerous literary masterpieces also came from dreams.
So what?
> Patton,
> Napoleon, and I think even Hitler believed they were reincarnated warriors
> of the past.
Again, so what?
> George Washington had a vision of the future with vast
> highways and vehicles unknown to him travelling on them.
> The number of
> discoveries and the amount of incredible creative genius that comes from the
> altered state of consciousness fills our libraries.
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter where ideas come from, because unless you
can prove their veracity they have no scientific value. Obviously that
doesn't apply to creative works; but we're not talking about those
here,or, at least, I'm not.
>
>>> Just because a bunch of undisciplined amateurs in a newsgroup cannot
>>> provide satisfaction to a skeptic (which, by the way, is not their
>>> responsibility),
>
>> So much for the "search for answers".
>
> You want answers? You wanna do some serious research?
Yep. You up for it?
> I flat out told you
> that quite often people who are going through severe emotional and/or
> physical trauma quite often live in an altered state of concsiousness. That
> is a fact you can research. Anyone who has lost a loved one will tell you
> they live in a sort of dream state or liquid reality. Isn't that a solid
> base on which to continue your research? Go to the alt.support groups and
> harrass them for some of their unusual experiences.
It seems entirely reasonable that people in extremes of grief and loss
would find themselves in altered states of mind. I imagine there's
already been rather extensive work on the neurochemistry behind it.
But that still doesn't mean that their supernormal experiences are
objectively real - in fact, it makes it less likely.
> Then call them liars
> unless they provide you with proof. That shouldn't be so difficult for you
> since that is exactly what you are doing here.
Have I ever called you a liar?
Do you call questioning your methods harassment?
David Mitchell
She worked in paranormal research for ten years. When you've "got a BA
(Hons) in psychology and physiology. A postgraduate degree in
environmental psychology at the University of Surrey, achieving an MSc
in 1974. In 1980, she got her Ph.D. in parapsychology from the same
university" and done the same, perhaps your opinion will be worth the
same as hers.
David Mitchell
> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:g47l42$fjv$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:g20daa$nd$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>> more useful than simply accepting it at face value.
>
> Of course. That is what this newsgroup is supposed to be about. The
> problem is, in the past this newsgroup was attacked by some insane skeptics
> who were incredibly rude and abusive to the point it destroyed the core of
> the NG. As I continue to read your posts I've come to the conclusion you do
> not fall into that category. There are a lot of misconceptions on the
> subject of OOBE. The very name is, in my opinion, incorrect and misleading.
> It is not "out of body" - it is a shift in consciousness.
Actually, from memory of the charter, the newsgroup was started to
"discuss all aspects of" the experience. Not to investigate it in any
serious way, and that's certainly not what happened. From my point of
view, what happened was that any even semi-serious attempt to add any
rigour at all to the discussions was met with hostility.
>>> Since this newsgroup is dedicated to the study of the OOB phenomena. Any
>>> claims made here do not require evidence. Even when evidence is given,
>>> it is usually and unnecessarily stomped all over by a skeptic.
>> Do you know what "Study" means?
>
> When this NG was in its hayday, the intent was to honestly relate
> experiences and suggest methods. Readers compared notes with the writers.
> This is a form of study.
Without some means of sifting the wheat from the chaff, it was never
going to be very productive, and it wasn't.
Or can you tell me of any significant breakthrough in understanding of
the experience which has been made during all the years this group has
existed?
>
>> "research or a detailed examination and analysis of a subject, phenomenon,
>> etc."
>> "application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading,
>> investigation, or reflection"
>
> Did I miss something?
Those are dictionary definitions of "Study".
> Certainly, that is why I reject the words of many who seek fame and fortune.
> It is fairly easy to see when they are attempting to lead one astray. It is
> when they start saying that they are a "Master" and that their Way is the
> only way. This NG was not an NG full of blind faith followers. We chased
> off a number of wannabe "Masters" and false prophets.
Yes; but the only antidote to blind faith is questioning, which is not
tolerated.
>
>>> How do I provide hard evidence for something like that?
>> You record your dreams, classify the events in them, and try to identify
>> all the times that the events happen, versus all the times they don't.
>
> And who would be the judge as to whether I was lying about the records?
You would be. This isn't about proving it to me, or anyone else. It's
for you.
If you /did/ want to prove it to anyone else, the process would have to
be a lot more rigorous.
>
>> You could also have a third party with a similar lifestyle to yours try to
>> match the dream events against their lives.
>>
>> See if the difference in the number of matches is statistically
>> significant.
>
> Is 100% statistically significant? That is the way it was with the woman I
> was talking about.
We can't eliminate mundane explanations in that situation.
> Also, if I have a precognitive dream and move to avoid
> the situation, wouldn't that score a miss? So I could be right 100% of the
> time but my score would be zero because I avoided the trauma...
Depends. If the event predicted still happened, it might still be a
hit (although it might not - suppose you predicted that you would be
mugged on a particular street, and wisely didn't take it. I'd be
willing to accept someone else being mugged on the exact same street at
precisely the time you would have been there as a hit; but not just
someone being mugged nearby).
OTOH, a plane you would have been on crashing, would be a definite hit.
>> You are claiming to have had a precognitive dream. You simply do not have
>> enough evidence to reasonably make that claim.
>
> I related a true story to a newsgroup of interested readers. Do you think I
> am expecting some kind of praise or monetary benefit? No, it is simply food
> for thought on topic in this NG.
Your motive isn't really the point (although being part of a clique is
often a good motivator - see Billy Meier for example).
What matters is whether what you are saying has any factual basis. We
grant you the courtesy of assuming you are telling the truth; but even
then we do not know whether your experience has any objective reality;
which makes it worthless for any serious attempt at study.
>> If being believed by non-believers matters to you, then evidence is what
>> you need. If it doesn't, then you don't.
>
> It doesn't. What does matter, though, is when somebody like PZ comes in
> here and starts ripping the place apart with ignorant demands for proof. It
> destroys the focus and intent of the group.
PZ's demands were hardly ignorant, and, since one of the aspects of the
experience is whether it's objectively real the charter allows it too.
>> But, in general, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>
> If I were to make a claim like this in a skeptic newsgroup I should be
> expected to provide the proper evidence but I don't go near those newsgroups
> because they make me want to puke.
That says more about you than them.
>>> Does my inability to provide evidence prove that it didn't
>>> happen or, at the very most, it was merely a coincidence?
>> No; but it doesn't eliminate coincidence as an explanation.
>
> That was a lot of coincidences with no misses...
It has been shown that people tend to forget their failures, and magnify
their remembered successes. Until you can eliminate that factor, you
can't reliably say how successful it actually was.
>>> Or how about when I was becoming very close to a female poster in another
>>> group. I described to her an experience of travelling (astrally) to her
>>> place and seeing a boy in a boy scout uniform standing in a fenced
>>> backyard. I also noted there was dog poop in the yard. She freaked and
>>> told me she had a son in the boy scouts and that they had a dog. I was
>>> unaware of this prior to my relating the experience to her.
>> Without seeing a transcript of all your conversations with her, it's
>> impossible to eliminate that possibility that she mentioned her son, the
>> scout, or the dog. By far the most likely possibility.
>
> But that isn't true. She didn't want to scare me off by telling me she had
> a kid.
You would be amazed what we can tell about people by talking to them.
You'd spent enough time talking to this woman to "fall in love" with
her. Do you really find it impossible to believe that you hadn't
subconsciously learnt a lot more about her than you consciously knew?
> That was four computers ago. I still have the hard drive with those
> emails on it, but since I don't need to prove to you what I know to be true,
> I'm not going to bother wasting an entire day digging through that stuff.
Why am I not surprised that you said that.
>> We believe that there are certain states of mind which convey experiences
>> with emotional and other components which society describes as
>> "spiritual", because there is strong evidence for them.
>>
>> But we do not accept that these states have any stronger meaning; because
>> there's no evidence for it.
>
> I have no clue of the meaning behind what you just said.
To simplify: people undoubtedly have "spiritual" experiences; but that
doesn't mean that there's a God, or "spiritual" realm any more than
vertigo means that the world is spinning.
>> You are free to be as irrational as you wish; my point concerns society in
>> general.
>
> Oh, you want to save society from people like me... It would be different
> if I were standing on a moutaintop shouting, "Give me money and I will teach
> you how to spy on your spouse!" But I'm not doing that. I'm simply
> relating on-topic stories in a specific newsgroup to interested readers.
Yes, and if all you want is a little kudos from the mutual appreciation
society just let me know and I'll killfile you.
Piccolo Pete
> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:g47l42$fjv$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>>>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:g20daa$nd$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> And so on. Surely you can see that investigating the phenomenon is much
>>> more useful than simply accepting it at face value.
>>
>> Of course. That is what this newsgroup is supposed to be about. The
>> problem is, in the past this newsgroup was attacked by some insane
>> skeptics who were incredibly rude and abusive to the point it destroyed
>> the core of the NG. As I continue to read your posts I've come to the
>> conclusion you do not fall into that category. There are a lot of
>> misconceptions on the subject of OOBE. The very name is, in my opinion,
>> incorrect and misleading. It is not "out of body" - it is a shift in
>> consciousness.
>
> Actually, from memory of the charter, the newsgroup was started to
> "discuss all aspects of" the experience. Not to investigate it in any
> serious way, and that's certainly not what happened.
Well, then, so what's your problem? If this group wasn't started to
investigate the phenomena, all of your questions are off topic.
>From my point of view, what happened was that any even semi-serious attempt
>to add any rigour at all to the discussions was met with hostility.
The hostility arose in response to abusive demands for proof that we could
not supply because we are all basically self-taught, undiciplined explorers.
>>>> Since this newsgroup is dedicated to the study of the OOB phenomena.
>>>> Any claims made here do not require evidence. Even when evidence is
>>>> given, it is usually and unnecessarily stomped all over by a skeptic.
>>> Do you know what "Study" means?
>>
>> When this NG was in its hayday, the intent was to honestly relate
>> experiences and suggest methods. Readers compared notes with the
>> writers. This is a form of study.
>
> Without some means of sifting the wheat from the chaff, it was never going
> to be very productive, and it wasn't.
Why should that put such a twist in your panties to the point this newsgroup
had to be destroyed? There was a point in time, prior to the skeptic
attacks, when this newsgroup was the most organized NG in its class.
> Or can you tell me of any significant breakthrough in understanding of the
> experience which has been made during all the years this group has
> existed?
We were defining certain portions of the experience when the skeptic attacks
began. Such as "Skimming the surface", "Vibrations", "Making the shift",
"Light portals" to change dimensional perception, discovering that music
within these experiences may actually be a way to control various organs in
our bodies, learning of certain archetypes such as fairies and demons that
could indicate early detection of a disease. Is that not enough? But the
incessant and cruel bombing of this newsgroup by insane stone-brained
skeptics destroyed all that fragile work just like Cortez invaded and
destroyed the Aztec empire. You want. You want. You want - and you don't
even give a damn about what you are given. So everybody loses.
>> Certainly, that is why I reject the words of many who seek fame and
>> fortune. It is fairly easy to see when they are attempting to lead one
>> astray. It is when they start saying that they are a "Master" and that
>> their Way is the only way. This NG was not an NG full of blind faith
>> followers. We chased off a number of wannabe "Masters" and false
>> prophets.
>
> Yes; but the only antidote to blind faith is questioning, which is not
> tolerated.
Questions are tolerated. Abusive demands for proof are not. There are
times when a feather is a better tool than a hammer.
>>>> How do I provide hard evidence for something like that?
>>> You record your dreams, classify the events in them, and try to identify
>>> all the times that the events happen, versus all the times they don't.
>>
>> And who would be the judge as to whether I was lying about the records?
>
> You would be. This isn't about proving it to me, or anyone else. It's
> for you.
That's what I've been saying all along!
> If you /did/ want to prove it to anyone else, the process would have to be
> a lot more rigorous.
Of course. And when I was up in Ohio, I was keeping an eye open for a cheap
used EEG machine so I could do just that. That kind of equipment is
essential for research on this subject. It could have shown me information
on both the vibrations and the music. It may have even given me information
on Light Portals. A thermal imager might also be helpful. But I don't have
that kind of money. So I must do this for my own personal understanding and
share it with like minded individuals. Insane stone-brained skeptics do not
come close to being like minded with the real posters in this newsgroup.
You all claim you do what you do in the name of science - but it is a total
farce. Never once has any one of you offered up a physical lab with the
proper equipment.
> PZ's demands were hardly ignorant
Incorrect. PZ was an ignorant, abusive, stone-brained skeptic who did not
have any true interest in the subject but mearly wanted to stomp all over
people who were honestly trying to find answers within the limited scope of
their resources. His demands were far beyond that scope. He, and others
like him, were nothing more than bully children who go around destroying the
creations of other more gentle children.
Oh, but that was a subjective experience, right? Pfft....
Bart
David Mitchell
> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:g4a738$299$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:g47l42$fjv$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>>>>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:g20daa$nd$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>> And so on. Surely you can see that investigating the phenomenon is much
>>>> more useful than simply accepting it at face value.
>>> Of course. That is what this newsgroup is supposed to be about. The
>>> problem is, in the past this newsgroup was attacked by some insane
>>> skeptics who were incredibly rude and abusive to the point it destroyed
>>> the core of the NG. As I continue to read your posts I've come to the
>>> conclusion you do not fall into that category. There are a lot of
>>> misconceptions on the subject of OOBE. The very name is, in my opinion,
>>> incorrect and misleading. It is not "out of body" - it is a shift in
>>> consciousness.
>> Actually, from memory of the charter, the newsgroup was started to
>> "discuss all aspects of" the experience. Not to investigate it in any
>> serious way, and that's certainly not what happened.
>
> Well, then, so what's your problem? If this group wasn't started to
> investigate the phenomena, all of your questions are off topic.
Discussing "All aspects" of the phenomenon must, obviously, include
whether it's objectively real or not.
>
>>From my point of view, what happened was that any even semi-serious attempt
>> to add any rigour at all to the discussions was met with hostility.
>
> The hostility arose in response to abusive demands for proof that we could
> not supply because we are all basically self-taught, undiciplined explorers.
No, the hostility arose whenever even the idea of proof was mentioned.
As it did in your post.
>
>>>>> Since this newsgroup is dedicated to the study of the OOB phenomena.
>>>>> Any claims made here do not require evidence. Even when evidence is
>>>>> given, it is usually and unnecessarily stomped all over by a skeptic.
>>>> Do you know what "Study" means?
>>> When this NG was in its hayday, the intent was to honestly relate
>>> experiences and suggest methods. Readers compared notes with the
>>> writers. This is a form of study.
>> Without some means of sifting the wheat from the chaff, it was never going
>> to be very productive, and it wasn't.
>
> Why should that put such a twist in your panties to the point this newsgroup
> had to be destroyed?
what am I, some sort of criminal mastermind? Organising tag-teams of
sceptics to pound your opposition into the ground.
Don't be ridiculous.
> There was a point in time, prior to the skeptic
> attacks, when this newsgroup was the most organized NG in its class.
And still, it achieved nothing of any objective value.
>
>> Or can you tell me of any significant breakthrough in understanding of the
>> experience which has been made during all the years this group has
>> existed?
>
> We were defining certain portions of the experience when the skeptic attacks
> began. Such as "Skimming the surface", "Vibrations", "Making the shift",
These all sound like reasonably sensible attempts to begin categorising
the experience.
How were they "Attacked" such that you had to stop doing it?
> "Light portals" to change dimensional perception, discovering that music
> within these experiences may actually be a way to control various organs in
> our bodies, learning of certain archetypes such as fairies and demons that
> could indicate early detection of a disease. Is that not enough?
Too much. You're already starting to impute meaning to experiences in a
way which is snot supported by the evidence. That's probably what got
your ass kicked.
> But the
> incessant and cruel bombing of this newsgroup by insane stone-brained
"Insane"? You really do have an axe to grind don't you?
> skeptics destroyed all that fragile work just like Cortez invaded and
> destroyed the Aztec empire.
I think you need to step away from the keyboard and calm down for a while.
> You want. You want. You want - and you don't
> even give a damn about what you are given. So everybody loses.
And rest. Slow, deep, breaths.
> Questions are tolerated. Abusive demands for proof are not. There are
> times when a feather is a better tool than a hammer.
I rather suspect that if you look back at the NG postings from a few
years ago, the "believers" were much more abusive and hostile than the
sceptics.
Certainly we question, and sometimes we mock. But, certainly I hope in
my case, only when it's warranted by stupidity.
It's not polite; but in this day and age, when all human knowledge is
available at the touch of a mouse, the level of basic ignorance shown by
some of the posters needs to be mocked. It's a moral imperative. ;-)
> Of course. And when I was up in Ohio, I was keeping an eye open for a cheap
> used EEG machine so I could do just that.
Try EBay.
> That kind of equipment is
> essential for research on this subject.
Not intially. Initially you have to show that there's something worth
investigating.
> It could have shown me information
> on both the vibrations and the music. It may have even given me information
> on Light Portals. A thermal imager might also be helpful. But I don't have
> that kind of money. So I must do this for my own personal understanding and
> share it with like minded individuals. Insane stone-brained skeptics do not
> come close to being like minded with the real posters in this newsgroup.
Do you have "insane stone-brained skeptics" on one of your function keys
or something?
> You all claim you do what you do in the name of science - but it is a total
> farce. Never once has any one of you offered up a physical lab with the
> proper equipment.
From my own point of view, I'm not interested in OBE's if they're
simply another purely subjective phenomenon. They're fun, and I'd like
to have them more often; but that's all. They're not going to advance
the cause of science in any real way.
However, if they were a means to access paranormal information in a
reliable way I'd be fascinated.
So the initial tests I've suggested to OBE capable posters are to see
whether this is the case.
So far, not one poster has plausibly claimed to be able to do something
as simple as read the values of a number of playing cards, face-up, out
of sight.
So I'm not interested.
>> PZ's demands were hardly ignorant
>
> Incorrect. PZ was an ignorant, abusive, stone-brained skeptic who did not
> have any true interest in the subject but mearly wanted to stomp all over
> people who were honestly trying to find answers within the limited scope of
> their resources. His demands were far beyond that scope. He, and others
> like him, were nothing more than bully children who go around destroying the
> creations of other more gentle children.
PZ is a biologist, he cares passionately about science; and the
methodology used to produce it. That's why his interactions with some
of the more ... flamboyant posters got out of hand. But he was matched
abuse for abuse by the "believers" here, in the way that you're freely
calling people "insane" and "stone-brained" right now.
Why is what you're doing any less wrong than his behaviour?
Piccolo Pete
> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:g47ldi$fs3$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>>>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:g1rmit$paj$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>>> Quantum Physics and String Theory indicate there are a number of
>>>> dimensions beyond what we normally perceive.
>>> You want to be careful with those buzz-words
>>
>> "Buzz-words"? Thirty years ago those were "buzz words" that could damage
>> a physicist's career. Now they are valid fields of research. Why the
>> hell should I be carefull with such comments?
>
> Because you don't know what you're talking about.
"String theory strongly suggests that spacetime has eleven dimensions", as
so many people like to quote Wikipedia...
> > The common man on the street would
>> say that there are only 3 dimensions. Incorrect - time is a dimension.
>> Does that mean there are only 4? No... what about density? What about
>> potential? What about awareness? Love?
>
> And there's the proof.
That's not proof of anything on your side. What your statement proves is
that you cannot comprehend the reality of dimensions of perception.
> > Does it stop there? I don't think
>> so - that is why I'm in this newsgroup. Why are you here if you refuse
>> to listen to what the hell we are talking about?
>
> I'm listening; but you're not making sense.
It's not my fault you don't have the ability to comprehend.
> > Why the hell do you think we have such a problem with skeptics?
>
> Because they catch you out when you're talking nonsense.
Skeptics are always talking nonsense. We talk theories and we attempt to
validate them to ourselves.
> > It is because they don't listen to the
>> answers we provide to their questions. They are unecessarily rude,
>> abusive, disruptive, and quite often just plain ignorant.
>
> At least I know when to use the right buzz-words ;-)
And... that makes sense?
>> All throughout history, skeptics have been proven wrong. Do I need to
>> list 5000 examples? I don't think so - I'm sure you already know the
>> track record of your ancestry...
>
> Skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method; which is by far and
> away the most powerful method mankind has ever invented for discovering
> the truth about the way the universe works.
Skepticism is a functional tool. It becomes abusive when it is used in an
obsessive/compulsive manner.
>> Will we prove you wrong here? I think it is a strong probability but it
>> will take one of the myriad of dimensions - time.
>
> Speaking of time; you've been having these experiences for something like
> thirty years, and you still haven't even discovered to even a legal level
> of proof whether it's subjectively or objectively real.
I came to that conclusion long ago. For the most part, it IS subjective. I
know for a fact that, when I'm making a journey, it is inward and not
outward. I've already made the statement that "out of body" is an incorrect
term. Without necessary personal discipline, I cannot hope to see things
the way they really are 100% of the time. But see, because of your nature,
you can't understand our language so you think we are a bunch of gibbering
fools when that is hardly the truth. It is my belief that what you call the
physical world is all accessable to the inner perception. But these visions
would be subject to our interpretation - making it a subjective experience.
The word "subjectivity" does not equate with the word "false". It simply
means that the full truth is blocked by personal prejudice and the need to
identify things on our own terms.
In the other post I mentioned fairies and demons. I'm sure that convinced
you I was truly looney - unless you understand archetypes. All the mythical
creatures of literature are archetypes of the psyche. They could be an
attempt of the mind to personify a program or neuronal malfunction or
disease, or they could truly be intradimensional beings. We don't know yet.
But at least we are making the effort, according to our own abilities, to
find out. What are skeptics doing? Nothing more than sitting back and
demanding that we show proof. If the skeptics would have left us alone we
might have made more progress over the last several years. Instead, they
just came in and ripped the place to shreds like a bunch of rabid baboons.
What a major fuckin' loss...
On the other hand, the ability to control the inner functions of the body
has been proven. That makes this part of it somewhat objective. Either
shut the hell up or buy some freaking test equipment and study some of us
like lab rats. Show us you are real scientists and not just a bunch of
bully trolls. If you don't want to dish out the cash to satisfy your
"scientific research" then shut up and go away. Leave us alone so that we
might regroup and start again.
>> Did I really decry the need for research? Every person in this NG who
>> practices some form of OOBE is doing personal research in an attempt to
>> prove it to their self. We don't have the desire, time, resources, or
>> energy to attempt to convince skeptics of our personal truths. You seem
>> to make it clear that you have no desire to study yourself as we do.
>
> So the daily meditation for the past thirty years doesn't count then?
If you are saying that you've been meditating daily for the past 30 years,
then yes, of course it counts. But if you only have two OOBs to show for it
then I might suggest a different method of meditation if you want to know
more about this subject.
> > Not our
>> fault, but yours. Not our loss, but yours. You certainly don't show
>> yourself to be an explorer
>
> Why is it that you think you know anything about me, on the basis of a few
> exchanges on usenet?
Observation - you do not show yourself to be an explorer. Where is the
evidence? Where is the proof ;-)
> > and if you don't have some kind of lab with an
>> eeg machine, I can't even suggest you are doing serious research. You
>> simply reveal yourself as a troll.
>
> I've only had two OBE's so I can't experiment directly on myself; but I
> can suggest experiments to others who do have the experiences - which is
> what I do.
>
> Oddly enough, none of them seem to be interested in following up.
You mean experiments like, "What do I have in my top dresser drawer under my
socks?" Stuff like that? Don't you think that is a little too heavy for
undiciplined neophytes without real training? Even with my experience I had
difficulty even getting near the pyramids in our first major group
experiment several years ago. Someone said they saw some guy flying head
first into the main pyramid and showing signs of disorientation, which would
account for my descriptions of slamming into buildings during the trip. But
the closest I felt I got was a gift shop somewhere in Africa even though I
was in a full blown OOB for at least a half hour. You folks demand too much
from us. We are not masters or even close to being experts. You are asking
five year olds to paint the Mona Lisa.
I've also told you that the highest quality hits seem to involve an
emotional bond. I would certainly not be emotionally bonded to your sock
and underware drawer.
>> Madam Blavatski produced a paper from an altered state which described
>> the nature of charged particles long before someone else received the
>> nobel prize for reaching the same conclusion.
>
> Without a means of proving her ideas were correct, they were useless.
> That's the point of science.
Yet she revealed a provable truth. Cough up some test equipment and maybe
we can get somewhere.
> > The nature of benzene was shown in a dream.
>
> And then verified experimentally.
Proving the dream revealed a truth.
> > Numerous literary masterpieces also came from dreams.
>
> So what?
Proving the inner worlds are worth exploring. What kind of picture do you
want me to paint of you? It shows no insight at this point.
> > Patton,
>> Napoleon, and I think even Hitler believed they were reincarnated
>> warriors of the past.
>
> Again, so what?
Only that their inner visions severely affected history and the lives of
millions.
> Have I ever called you a liar?
I told you I had no prior knowledge of that woman having a son in the boy
scouts. It could easily be said that, since you suggested I had prior
knowledge, you basically said I was lying.
> Do you call questioning your methods harassment?
I call making unreasonable demands harassment. If we were running around in
open society making out landish claims you and your friends would have every
right to jump all over us. But we are a simple newsgroup trying to
understand something. We don't need your excessive questioning to distract
us and destroy our train of thought.
Bart
Piccolo Pete
> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>> The hostility arose in response to abusive demands for proof that we
>> could not supply because we are all basically self-taught, undiciplined
>> explorers.
>
> No, the hostility arose whenever even the idea of proof was mentioned.
A proof was not needed at that time and it should have been obvious to you.
What those people did was similar to going into a first grade class and
killing all the children.
>> Why should that put such a twist in your panties to the point this
>> newsgroup had to be destroyed?
>
> what am I, some sort of criminal mastermind? Organising tag-teams of
> sceptics to pound your opposition into the ground.
>
> Don't be ridiculous.
I don't recall if you were there or not. But I do recall that it was a
basic slaughter. While your attitude may not be exactly the same, it is not
far off the same track.
> > There was a point in time, prior to the skeptic
>> attacks, when this newsgroup was the most organized NG in its class.
>
> And still, it achieved nothing of any objective value.
So... now you want to prove you are full of crap? And what does it matter
to you anyway? This is just a newsgroup about an altered state of
consciousness. Why is it so important to you? Why don't you go attack some
of the child porn groups?
>>> Or can you tell me of any significant breakthrough in understanding of
>>> the experience which has been made during all the years this group has
>>> existed?
>>
>> We were defining certain portions of the experience when the skeptic
>> attacks began. Such as "Skimming the surface", "Vibrations", "Making the
>> shift",
>
> These all sound like reasonably sensible attempts to begin categorising
> the experience.
>
> How were they "Attacked" such that you had to stop doing it?
Blatant demands for advanced levels of proof. I told you this before. We
could not respond to this level of attack.
>> "Light portals" to change dimensional perception, discovering that music
>> within these experiences may actually be a way to control various organs
>> in our bodies, learning of certain archetypes such as fairies and demons
>> that could indicate early detection of a disease. Is that not enough?
>
> Too much. You're already starting to impute meaning to experiences in a
> way which is snot supported by the evidence. That's probably what got
> your ass kicked.
We weren't talking to you or your cohorts. We were invaded and destroyed by
a bunch of insane stone-brained skeptics.
If you don't understand what an archetype is then you are a total freaking
idiot on this subject.
Look at your goddam post. You have no clue what a light portal is. You
don't give a damn about the music. These are real things. These are real
things that were stomped all over by your ignorant skeptic friends. You
don't have a clue of what you are talking about and you've made your
research totally barren.
You are a fucking clown. Get the hell out of this newsgroup you fucking
troll.
David Mitchell
> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:g4bck9$n8v$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>
>>> The hostility arose in response to abusive demands for proof that we
>>> could not supply because we are all basically self-taught, undiciplined
>>> explorers.
>> No, the hostility arose whenever even the idea of proof was mentioned.
>
> A proof was not needed at that time and it should have been obvious to you.
> What those people did was similar to going into a first grade class and
> killing all the children.
No it wasn't. Not even the teensiest tinest bit.
How can you possibly compare the two?
>>> There was a point in time, prior to the skeptic
>>> attacks, when this newsgroup was the most organized NG in its class.
>> And still, it achieved nothing of any objective value.
>
> So... now you want to prove you are full of crap? And what does it matter
> to you anyway?
I'm interested in the subject.
> This is just a newsgroup about an altered state of
> consciousness. Why is it so important to you?
I'm interested in the subject.
> Why don't you go attack some
> of the child porn groups?
I'm not interested in that subject; and I rather suspect they're not
areas for debate.
>>>> Or can you tell me of any significant breakthrough in understanding of
>>>> the experience which has been made during all the years this group has
>>>> existed?
>>> We were defining certain portions of the experience when the skeptic
>>> attacks began. Such as "Skimming the surface", "Vibrations", "Making the
>>> shift",
>> These all sound like reasonably sensible attempts to begin categorising
>> the experience.
>>
>> How were they "Attacked" such that you had to stop doing it?
>
> Blatant demands for advanced levels of proof. I told you this before. We
> could not respond to this level of attack.
You "had" to? What, did your fingers stop working?
>
>>> "Light portals" to change dimensional perception, discovering that music
>>> within these experiences may actually be a way to control various organs
>>> in our bodies, learning of certain archetypes such as fairies and demons
>>> that could indicate early detection of a disease. Is that not enough?
>> Too much. You're already starting to impute meaning to experiences in a
>> way which is snot supported by the evidence. That's probably what got
>> your ass kicked.
>
> We weren't talking to you or your cohorts. We were invaded and destroyed by
> a bunch of insane stone-brained skeptics.
>
> If you don't understand what an archetype is then you are a total freaking
> idiot on this subject.
Actually, I do know what archetypes are. Thanks for asking.
But what I was talking about, if you read carefully, was the difference
between reporting an experience, and assigning meaning to them.
The former is always scientifically valid - the latter leaves you open
to having your assumptions questioned.
>
> Look at your goddam post. You have no clue what a light portal is. You
> don't give a damn about the music. These are real things. These are real
> things that were stomped all over by your ignorant skeptic friends.
Real to you, perhaps. Real subjective phenomena, perhaps. But you
cannot make the leap to saying that they're objective phenomena without
a lot more research.
David Mitchell
> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:g4a3kl$s47$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:g47ldi$fs3$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>>>>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:g1rmit$paj$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>>> Quantum Physics and String Theory indicate there are a number of
>>>>> dimensions beyond what we normally perceive.
>>>> You want to be careful with those buzz-words
>>> "Buzz-words"? Thirty years ago those were "buzz words" that could damage
>>> a physicist's career. Now they are valid fields of research. Why the
>>> hell should I be carefull with such comments?
>> Because you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> "String theory strongly suggests that spacetime has eleven dimensions", as
> so many people like to quote Wikipedia...
Yeah, but Quantum Mechanics doesn't imply the presence of other
dimensions, and, if you care to look it up, you probably ought to
mention 'Brane Theory or M-Theory, when you're touting buzz-words,
since, unlike most string theories, it suggests the presence of
dimensions larger than our 4-D space time, rather than much, much smaller.
>
>>> The common man on the street would
>>> say that there are only 3 dimensions. Incorrect - time is a dimension.
>>> Does that mean there are only 4? No... what about density? What about
>>> potential? What about awareness? Love?
>> And there's the proof.
>
> That's not proof of anything on your side. What your statement proves is
> that you cannot comprehend the reality of dimensions of perception.
No, what it proves was that you do not really understand the word
"dimension" as applied to the physical world.
>
>>> Does it stop there? I don't think
>>> so - that is why I'm in this newsgroup. Why are you here if you refuse
>>> to listen to what the hell we are talking about?
>> I'm listening; but you're not making sense.
>
> It's not my fault you don't have the ability to comprehend.
<Chuckle.>
> Skeptics are always talking nonsense. We talk theories and we attempt to
> validate them to ourselves.
Not in my experience.
>>> It is because they don't listen to the
>>> answers we provide to their questions. They are unecessarily rude,
>>> abusive, disruptive, and quite often just plain ignorant.
>> At least I know when to use the right buzz-words ;-)
>
> And... that makes sense?
Yep. Read it again.
>>> Will we prove you wrong here? I think it is a strong probability but it
>>> will take one of the myriad of dimensions - time.
>> Speaking of time; you've been having these experiences for something like
>> thirty years, and you still haven't even discovered to even a legal level
>> of proof whether it's subjectively or objectively real.
>
> I came to that conclusion long ago.
What you *think* doesn't really matter. It's interesting, and should
shape your research; but it's what you can *prove* that counts.
> The word "subjectivity" does not equate with the word "false".
I've never said it did.
> In the other post I mentioned fairies and demons. I'm sure that convinced
> you I was truly looney - unless you understand archetypes. All the mythical
> creatures of literature are archetypes of the psyche. They could be an
> attempt of the mind to personify a program or neuronal malfunction or
> disease, or they could truly be intradimensional beings. We don't know yet.
Then try to find out.
> But at least we are making the effort, according to our own abilities, to
> find out. What are skeptics doing? Nothing more than sitting back and
> demanding that we show proof.
What else should we do. You want us to research; but *you* are our
equipment in this case. Trying to alter your direction into something a
little more objective is literally all we can do.
> If the skeptics would have left us alone we
> might have made more progress over the last several years. Instead, they
> just came in and ripped the place to shreds like a bunch of rabid baboons.
> What a major fuckin' loss...
Yeah. Major.
>
> On the other hand, the ability to control the inner functions of the body
> has been proven. That makes this part of it somewhat objective.
Uh, no. Biofeedback, for example, is accepted as an objective phenomenon.
> Either
> shut the hell up or buy some freaking test equipment and study some of us
> like lab rats. Show us you are real scientists and not just a bunch of
> bully trolls. If you don't want to dish out the cash to satisfy your
> "scientific research" then shut up and go away. Leave us alone so that we
> might regroup and start again.
I've explained in another why that's not going to happen, as far as I'm
concerned: unless you can show me there's something worth spending time
and money on I'm not interested.
> If you are saying that you've been meditating daily for the past 30 years,
> then yes, of course it counts. But if you only have two OOBs to show for it
> then I might suggest a different method of meditation if you want to know
> more about this subject.
My meditation isn't about OBE's.
>
>>> Not our
>>> fault, but yours. Not our loss, but yours. You certainly don't show
>>> yourself to be an explorer
>> Why is it that you think you know anything about me, on the basis of a few
>> exchanges on usenet?
>
> Observation - you do not show yourself to be an explorer. Where is the
> evidence? Where is the proof ;-)
I've got a pith helmet in the attic*. Does that count?
>>> and if you don't have some kind of lab with an
>>> eeg machine, I can't even suggest you are doing serious research. You
>>> simply reveal yourself as a troll.
>> I've only had two OBE's so I can't experiment directly on myself; but I
>> can suggest experiments to others who do have the experiences - which is
>> what I do.
>>
>> Oddly enough, none of them seem to be interested in following up.
>
> You mean experiments like, "What do I have in my top dresser drawer under my
> socks?" Stuff like that? Don't you think that is a little too heavy for
> undiciplined neophytes without real training?
Yep. That's why I always start with something smaller - the card test.
> Even with my experience I had
> difficulty even getting near the pyramids in our first major group
> experiment several years ago. Someone said they saw some guy flying head
> first into the main pyramid and showing signs of disorientation, which would
> account for my descriptions of slamming into buildings during the trip. But
> the closest I felt I got was a gift shop somewhere in Africa even though I
> was in a full blown OOB for at least a half hour. You folks demand too much
> from us. We are not masters or even close to being experts. You are asking
> five year olds to paint the Mona Lisa.
Two things:
1) There have been OBE practitioners here who have claimed to be able to
fulfil those tests; but they never have when asked.
2) As I said above, I always suggest starting with something smaller.
> I've also told you that the highest quality hits seem to involve an
> emotional bond. I would certainly not be emotionally bonded to your sock
> and underware drawer.
Maybe if you got to know it, spent some time talking with it..
That's why we've suggested other tests in the past (identifying toys etc).
You're the expert, *you* suggest the test.
>
>>> Madam Blavatski produced a paper from an altered state which described
>>> the nature of charged particles long before someone else received the
>>> nobel prize for reaching the same conclusion.
>> Without a means of proving her ideas were correct, they were useless.
>> That's the point of science.
>
> Yet she revealed a provable truth. Cough up some test equipment and maybe
> we can get somewhere.
People like her come up with all sorts of nonsense 24/7. Without some
means of filtering out the nonsense there isn't enough time and money in
the world to test all the ideas.
>
>>> The nature of benzene was shown in a dream.
>> And then verified experimentally.
>
> Proving the dream revealed a truth.
>
>>> Numerous literary masterpieces also came from dreams.
>> So what?
>
> Proving the inner worlds are worth exploring. What kind of picture do you
> want me to paint of you? It shows no insight at this point.
>
>>> Patton,
>>> Napoleon, and I think even Hitler believed they were reincarnated
>>> warriors of the past.
>> Again, so what?
>
> Only that their inner visions severely affected history and the lives of
> millions.
Bart, everyone know we dream. Everyone knows that dreams can be
creative, and everyone knows what we can be affected by dreams.
So what?
>
>> Have I ever called you a liar?
>
> I told you I had no prior knowledge of that woman having a son in the boy
> scouts. It could easily be said that, since you suggested I had prior
> knowledge, you basically said I was lying.
Nope. I said "Do you really find it impossible to believe that you
hadn't subconsciously learnt a lot more about her than you consciously
knew?"
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================
[*]: Actually, I haven't. I was being facetious.
ramiga
> Is an "out of body" experience nothing more than a lucid dream, or does it
> involve "soul travel"?
>
> trained to "meet up" and communicate?
>
> nowhere.
Out of body experiences are soul travel. A lucid dream can be altered.
Soul travel is not altered. Soul travelers journey in time and place.
As an exmple, I was in Bangladesh when the masscre took place (1977).
I was quite disturbed and when I saw it on television the next day, I
was doubly troubled. I later learned to direct my Soul travels to more
peaceful places, such as Lake Winnipeg in Canada.
Lucid dreaming helps with thought control. I see lucid dreaming as a
step towards Soul travel.
peace, mmgr
http://www.marmsweb.com
Piccolo Pete
> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:g4a3kl$s47$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>>>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:g47ldi$fs3$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>>> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>>>>>> "David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:g1rmit$paj$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>> Quantum Physics and String Theory indicate there are a number of
>>>>>> dimensions beyond what we normally perceive.
>>>>> You want to be careful with those buzz-words
>>>> "Buzz-words"? Thirty years ago those were "buzz words" that could
>>>> damage a physicist's career. Now they are valid fields of research.
>>>> Why the hell should I be carefull with such comments?
>>> Because you don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>> "String theory strongly suggests that spacetime has eleven dimensions",
>> as so many people like to quote Wikipedia...
>
> Yeah, but Quantum Mechanics doesn't imply the presence of other
> dimensions, and, if you care to look it up, you probably ought to mention
> 'Brane Theory or M-Theory, when you're touting buzz-words, since, unlike
> most string theories, it suggests the presence of dimensions larger than
> our 4-D space time, rather than much, much smaller.
I can't see how that would disqualify my comment. Larger? Smaller? How
can you possibly relate one dimension to another - that is why they are
defined as dimensions. How can X possibly relate to Y or Z? They are
totally seperate dimensions and would only relate if formulated on a larger
scale. As this formulation reaches conclusions, other dimensions are
revealed.
>>>> The common man on the street would
>>>> say that there are only 3 dimensions. Incorrect - time is a dimension.
>>>> Does that mean there are only 4? No... what about density? What about
>>>> potential? What about awareness? Love?
>>> And there's the proof.
>>
>> That's not proof of anything on your side. What your statement proves is
>> that you cannot comprehend the reality of dimensions of perception.
>
> No, what it proves was that you do not really understand the word
> "dimension" as applied to the physical world.
If we are talking about something beyond the common four dimensions then we
must be talking about something that is not of the physical world...
>> Skeptics are always talking nonsense. We talk theories and we attempt to
>> validate them to ourselves.
>
> Not in my experience.
Your experience does not appear to involve retrospect.
>>>> It is because they don't listen to the
>>>> answers we provide to their questions. They are unecessarily rude,
>>>> abusive, disruptive, and quite often just plain ignorant.
>>> At least I know when to use the right buzz-words ;-)
>>
>> And... that makes sense?
>
> Yep. Read it again.
I read it over and over - my statement stands true and yours is just a
stupid joke.
>>>> Will we prove you wrong here? I think it is a strong probability but
>>>> it will take one of the myriad of dimensions - time.
>>> Speaking of time; you've been having these experiences for something
>>> like thirty years, and you still haven't even discovered to even a legal
>>> level of proof whether it's subjectively or objectively real.
>>
>> I came to that conclusion long ago.
>
> What you *think* doesn't really matter. It's interesting, and should
> shape your research; but it's what you can *prove* that counts.
>
>> The word "subjectivity" does not equate with the word "false".
>
> I've never said it did.
>
>> In the other post I mentioned fairies and demons. I'm sure that
>> convinced you I was truly looney - unless you understand archetypes. All
>> the mythical creatures of literature are archetypes of the psyche. They
>> could be an attempt of the mind to personify a program or neuronal
>> malfunction or disease, or they could truly be intradimensional beings.
>> We don't know yet.
>
> Then try to find out.
We were trying to find out but you guys blew our newsgroup apart. You
destroyed our focus with these stupid demands.
And why should I carry that load alone? Why don't you help out? Who the
hell
gives you the right to put that load on me alone? Why do you keep demanding
proof
and avoiding the subject of test equipment?
>> But at least we are making the effort, according to our own abilities, to
>> find out. What are skeptics doing? Nothing more than sitting back and
>> demanding that we show proof.
>
> What else should we do. You want us to research; but *you* are our
> equipment in this case. Trying to alter your direction into something a
> little more objective is literally all we can do.
No it isn't. You could rent a lab and buy some test equipment.
Otherwise be satisfied that this newsgroup is a useless waste of your time
and simply go away.
> > If the skeptics would have left us alone we
>> might have made more progress over the last several years. Instead, they
>> just came in and ripped the place to shreds like a bunch of rabid
>> baboons. What a major fuckin' loss...
>
> Yeah. Major.
I'm not sure how to accept this comment. I can only hope you are being
sincere.
>> On the other hand, the ability to control the inner functions of the body
>> has been proven. That makes this part of it somewhat objective.
>
> Uh, no. Biofeedback, for example, is accepted as an objective phenomenon.
You don't know about any of the monks in the monasaries of India? Slowing
the heartbeat down to 1 beat per minute. Generating body heat to melt many
frozen blankets when I'm sure you couldn't even melt one. 70 year olds who
look like they are 25.
> > Either
>> shut the hell up or buy some freaking test equipment and study some of us
>> like lab rats. Show us you are real scientists and not just a bunch of
>> bully trolls. If you don't want to dish out the cash to satisfy your
>> "scientific research" then shut up and go away. Leave us alone so that
>> we might regroup and start again.
>
> I've explained in another why that's not going to happen, as far as I'm
> concerned: unless you can show me there's something worth spending time
> and money on I'm not interested.
Then go away. What could possibly be keeping you here except your need to
bother us?
>> If you are saying that you've been meditating daily for the past 30
>> years, then yes, of course it counts. But if you only have two OOBs to
>> show for it then I might suggest a different method of meditation if you
>> want to know more about this subject.
> My meditation isn't about OBE's.
Then go away.
>>>> Not our
>>>> fault, but yours. Not our loss, but yours. You certainly don't show
>>>> yourself to be an explorer
>>> Why is it that you think you know anything about me, on the basis of a
>>> few exchanges on usenet?
>>
>> Observation - you do not show yourself to be an explorer. Where is the
>> evidence? Where is the proof ;-)
>
> I've got a pith helmet in the attic*. Does that count?
Another useless comment.
>>>> and if you don't have some kind of lab with an
>>>> eeg machine, I can't even suggest you are doing serious research. You
>>>> simply reveal yourself as a troll.
>>> I've only had two OBE's so I can't experiment directly on myself; but I
>>> can suggest experiments to others who do have the experiences - which is
>>> what I do.
>>>
>>> Oddly enough, none of them seem to be interested in following up.
>>
>> You mean experiments like, "What do I have in my top dresser drawer under
>> my socks?" Stuff like that? Don't you think that is a little too heavy
>> for undiciplined neophytes without real training?
>
> Yep. That's why I always start with something smaller - the card test.
Who is ever emotionally involved with or traumatized by cards? What could
possibly get anyone interested in such a mundane experiment?
> > Even with my experience I had
>> difficulty even getting near the pyramids in our first major group
>> experiment several years ago. Someone said they saw some guy flying head
>> first into the main pyramid and showing signs of disorientation, which
>> would account for my descriptions of slamming into buildings during the
>> trip. But the closest I felt I got was a gift shop somewhere in Africa
>> even though I was in a full blown OOB for at least a half hour. You
>> folks demand too much from us. We are not masters or even close to being
>> experts. You are asking five year olds to paint the Mona Lisa.
>
> Two things:
> 1) There have been OBE practitioners here who have claimed to be able to
> fulfil those tests; but they never have when asked.
We don't respond to assholes and we shouldn't be required to do so.
> 2) As I said above, I always suggest starting with something smaller.
Your requests are useless.
>> I've also told you that the highest quality hits seem to involve an
>> emotional bond. I would certainly not be emotionally bonded to your sock
>> and underware drawer.
>
> Maybe if you got to know it, spent some time talking with it..
>
> That's why we've suggested other tests in the past (identifying toys etc).
>
> You're the expert, *you* suggest the test.
Get some test equipment and rent a lab. And by the way, I never said I was
an expert.
>>>> Madam Blavatski produced a paper from an altered state which described
>>>> the nature of charged particles long before someone else received the
>>>> nobel prize for reaching the same conclusion.
>>> Without a means of proving her ideas were correct, they were useless.
>>> That's the point of science.
>>
>> Yet she revealed a provable truth. Cough up some test equipment and
>> maybe we can get somewhere.
>
> People like her come up with all sorts of nonsense 24/7. Without some
> means of filtering out the nonsense there isn't enough time and money in
> the world to test all the ideas.
Oh, her stuff was nonsense even though it was accurate. Couldn't be proven
without lab equipment. You call us junk but you refuse to produce lab
equipment. Am I supposed to make sense out of this?
>>>> The nature of benzene was shown in a dream.
>>> And then verified experimentally.
>>
>> Proving the dream revealed a truth.
>>
>>>> Numerous literary masterpieces also came from dreams.
>>> So what?
>>
>> Proving the inner worlds are worth exploring. What kind of picture do
>> you want me to paint of you? It shows no insight at this point.
>>
>>>> Patton,
>>>> Napoleon, and I think even Hitler believed they were reincarnated
>>>> warriors of the past.
>>> Again, so what?
>>
>> Only that their inner visions severely affected history and the lives of
>> millions.
>
> Bart, everyone know we dream. Everyone knows that dreams can be creative,
> and everyone knows what we can be affected by dreams.
>
> So what?
It is a valid field of research. Don't come in here and shit on us anymore.
>>> Have I ever called you a liar?
>>
>> I told you I had no prior knowledge of that woman having a son in the boy
>> scouts. It could easily be said that, since you suggested I had prior
>> knowledge, you basically said I was lying.
>
> Nope. I said "Do you really find it impossible to believe that you hadn't
> subconsciously learnt a lot more about her than you consciously knew?"
I already told you "yes" because it was a gaurded secret of hers.
As with all skeptics of your caliber, this conversation is useless.
Bart
ramiga
> Is an "out of body" experience nothing more than a lucid dream, or does it
> involve "soul travel"?
>
> If it's the latter, would it be possible for two people who are propertly
> trained to "meet up" and communicate?
>
> URL's would be greatly appreciated. I spent a few hours googling and got
> nowhere.
http://www.oberf.org/faq's.htm
I have used this site often to see what others are experiencing. It
may give you some how to's.
peace, mmgr
David Mitchell
>> Yeah, but Quantum Mechanics doesn't imply the presence of other
>> dimensions, and, if you care to look it up, you probably ought to mention
>> 'Brane Theory or M-Theory, when you're touting buzz-words, since, unlike
>> most string theories, it suggests the presence of dimensions larger than
>> our 4-D space time, rather than much, much smaller.
>
> I can't see how that would disqualify my comment. Larger? Smaller? How
> can you possibly relate one dimension to another - that is why they are
> defined as dimensions. How can X possibly relate to Y or Z? They are
> totally seperate dimensions and would only relate if formulated on a larger
> scale. As this formulation reaches conclusions, other dimensions are
> revealed.
Not so. The word "dimension" has precise meanings in science.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
>
>>>>> The common man on the street would
>>>>> say that there are only 3 dimensions. Incorrect - time is a dimension.
>>>>> Does that mean there are only 4? No... what about density? What about
>>>>> potential? What about awareness? Love?
>>>> And there's the proof.
>>> That's not proof of anything on your side. What your statement proves is
>>> that you cannot comprehend the reality of dimensions of perception.
>> No, what it proves was that you do not really understand the word
>> "dimension" as applied to the physical world.
>
> If we are talking about something beyond the common four dimensions then we
> must be talking about something that is not of the physical world...
Not so, see the article.
But, with regard to your comment: if you're saying that "density",
"potential", "awareness" and "love" are all dimensions - which you
appear to be, above, then you're also saying that those four things are
"not of the physical world", which is nonsense.
>
>>> Skeptics are always talking nonsense. We talk theories and we attempt to
>>> validate them to ourselves.
>> Not in my experience.
>
> Your experience does not appear to involve retrospect.
Okay, I'll bite. Which posts are you talking about? Google groups
keeps newsgroup postings for years. Post the references and I'll take a
look.
>> Then try to find out.
>
> We were trying to find out but you guys blew our newsgroup apart. You
> destroyed our focus with these stupid demands.
Why didn't you just ignore them?
> And why should I carry that load alone? Why don't you help out?
I try, by posting about my own limited experiences, providing
information when I have it, questioning assumptions, and correcting
falsehoods when I can.
What more can I do? Seriously.
> Who the hell gives you the right to put that load on me alone?
What load? The burden of providing proof of your assertions?
It's hardly onerous.
> Why do you keep demanding
> proof
> and avoiding the subject of test equipment?
You really are obsessed with that test equipment aren't you?
As I said,on the 30th June: "From my own point of view, I'm not
interested in OBE's if they're simply another purely subjective
phenomenon. They're fun, and I'd like to have them more often; but
that's all. They're not going to advance the cause of science in any
real way."
Hardly "avoiding the subject".
>
>>> But at least we are making the effort, according to our own abilities, to
>>> find out. What are skeptics doing? Nothing more than sitting back and
>>> demanding that we show proof.
>> What else should we do. You want us to research; but *you* are our
>> equipment in this case. Trying to alter your direction into something a
>> little more objective is literally all we can do.
>
> No it isn't. You could rent a lab and buy some test equipment.
There you are again. Since it clearly concerns you, I'll explain again:
suppose I were to buy (or make http://openeeg.sourceforge.net/doc/) an
EEG machine. What happens next? I can't generate the experiences at
will, and even if I could, I'm not a neuroscientist capable of
interpreting the data.
To be honest, rather than an EEG, what's really needed here, I suspect,
is an MRI scanner, and they cost millions - even the scans cost
somewhere between $800-$1500 a pop.
And besides, what hypothesis am I testing? The most obvious one is that
OBE's are associated with Temporal Lobe activity; and all that would
show is correlation, not causality.
So, my approach, is different. I take a phenomenological approach,
using the insights into my own mind gained by my years of meditation to
analyse the experiences of others.
However, and I appreciate that I've told you this a number of times
before, but you don't seem to be taking it in: I'm really only
interested in OBE's if they're genuinely paranormal; and I don't have a
test subject capable of having what they believe to be "objectively
real", and therefore paranormal, OBEs.
> Otherwise be satisfied that this newsgroup is a useless waste of your time
> and simply go away.
Where else am I likely to find a test subject?
>>> If the skeptics would have left us alone we
>>> might have made more progress over the last several years. Instead, they
>>> just came in and ripped the place to shreds like a bunch of rabid
>>> baboons. What a major fuckin' loss...
>> Yeah. Major.
>
> I'm not sure how to accept this comment. I can only hope you are being
> sincere.
Nope.
>
>>> On the other hand, the ability to control the inner functions of the body
>>> has been proven. That makes this part of it somewhat objective.
>> Uh, no. Biofeedback, for example, is accepted as an objective phenomenon.
>
> You don't know about any of the monks in the monasaries of India? Slowing
> the heartbeat down to 1 beat per minute.
As I said: "Biofeedback, for example, is accepted as an objective
phenomenon."
However, I doubt your figures, 1bpm sounds unlikely. Do you have a cite
for it?
> Generating body heat to melt many
> frozen blankets when I'm sure you couldn't even melt one.
Oooh, blanket-melting pissing-contest. Grow up.
> Then go away. What could possibly be keeping you here except your need to
> bother us?
See above.
>> My meditation isn't about OBE's.
>
> Then go away.
What, every aspect of my life has to be OBE-centric or I have no right
to post in a public newsgroup on the subject?
Don't be silly.
Besides, as I explained above, although OBE research is not the point of
my meditation, the practice does provide insights into it.
>> I've got a pith helmet in the attic*. Does that count?
> Another useless comment.
It's a joke. I'm sure you've heard of them.
>> Yep. That's why I always start with something smaller - the card test.
>
> Who is ever emotionally involved with or traumatized by cards? What could
> possibly get anyone interested in such a mundane experiment?
As I'm sure you know, not all OBE practitioners require emotional
involvement with their subjects, furthermore, finding oneself near one's
sleeping body is one of the most common forms of OBE.
Given that this is the case, taking a quick look at the cards on top of
the bedroom cupboard doesn't seem unreasonable.
>> 1) There have been OBE practitioners here who have claimed to be able to
>> fulfil those tests; but they never have when asked.
>
> We don't respond to assholes and we shouldn't be required to do so.
Nope. But if you really are interested in finding the truth, why not?
>> That's why we've suggested other tests in the past (identifying toys etc).
>>
>> You're the expert, *you* suggest the test.
>
> Get some test equipment and rent a lab.
There you go again. Do you sell used lab-equipment or something?
> And by the way, I never said I was an expert.
No, but you claim to be able to find flaws on my proposals, and to have
been having these experiences for many years.
Surely you've learned /something/ in all that time which could be used
as a means of testing whether the experiences are objectively real or not.
>
>>>>> Madam Blavatski produced a paper from an altered state which described
>>>>> the nature of charged particles long before someone else received the
>>>>> nobel prize for reaching the same conclusion.
>>>> Without a means of proving her ideas were correct, they were useless.
>>>> That's the point of science.
>>> Yet she revealed a provable truth. Cough up some test equipment and
>>> maybe we can get somewhere.
>> People like her come up with all sorts of nonsense 24/7. Without some
>> means of filtering out the nonsense there isn't enough time and money in
>> the world to test all the ideas.
>
> Oh, her stuff was nonsense even though it was accurate. Couldn't be proven
> without lab equipment.
She wrote reams of tosh, volumes and volumes. That she occasionally got
something right is probably a coincidence - although she was certainly
already aware of other speculation in that area (Isis Unveiled Chapter
6). I'll take a look. Where, and when, did she publish her "vision"?
> You call us junk but you refuse to produce lab
> equipment.
Leaving aside your lab-equipment fixation, I've never called you, or
anyone, junk.
> Am I supposed to make sense out of this?
It's not hard, really. What don't you understand?
>> So what?
>
> It is a valid field of research.
Yes, dreams are a valid field of research. And there are lots of people
researching in it.
So what?
> Don't come in here and shit on us anymore.
You have a very vivid imagination.
>
>>>> Have I ever called you a liar?
>>> I told you I had no prior knowledge of that woman having a son in the boy
>>> scouts. It could easily be said that, since you suggested I had prior
>>> knowledge, you basically said I was lying.
>> Nope. I said "Do you really find it impossible to believe that you hadn't
>> subconsciously learnt a lot more about her than you consciously knew?"
>
> I already told you "yes" because it was a gaurded secret of hers.
Nope. I've explained my position. If you wish to interpret that as my
calling you a liar even though I've explicitly told you that's not the
case, feel free. But I wasn't.
Piccolo Pete
> Piccolo Pete wrote:
> We were trying to find out but you guys blew our newsgroup apart. You
> destroyed our focus with these stupid demands.
Why didn't you just ignore them?
Okay...
Richard
the FAQ, he dropped in on this news group, and asked for examples of certain
types of experiences. One of mine was chosen, and was part of the original
FAQ. Sad to say, it looks like he dropped it in this rendition.
--
My story begins on page 49 of this pdf file
http://www.outofbodytravel.org/images/Journal_-_Issue_Eleven.pdf
--
Richard
"SETI@home" is a scientific experiment that uses Internet-connected
computers in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). You can
participate by running a free program that downloads and analyzes radio
telescope data.
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu
"ramiga" <gnos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c3bd861a-6c1c-4afd...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...