WHERE is the Astral Plane "Located" ?
The Heretic
Before you answer, think about what you can do on the astral plane with
your astral body. Walk thru walls, fly, etc....
So then....again where is it located?
Strange question....it seems one cannot point to an exact location and
say "Here, this is where the astral plane exists".
Maybe.....just maybe, one is asking the wrong question.
Maybe the question should be:
-----Are you and have you been ALL ALONG in the "Astral", and you just
THINK you're in the 'heavy dense physical world'.
The Heretic.
"Physical reality is just a state of mind"
--
"Everything you
can imagine is true,
so choose your thoughts thoughtfully,
choose your beliefs carefully
and choose your REALITY wisely..."
leonardo dasso
The Heretic <equa...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3979E0...@concentric.net...
> Think about this question, Where is it located?
>
> Before you answer, think about what you can do on the astral plane with
> your astral body. Walk thru walls, fly, etc....
>
> So then....again where is it located?
>
> Strange question....it seems one cannot point to an exact location and
> say "Here, this is where the astral plane exists".
>
> Maybe.....just maybe, one is asking the wrong question.
>
> Maybe the question should be:
> -----Are you and have you been ALL ALONG in the "Astral", and you just
> THINK you're in the 'heavy dense physical world'.
>
> The Heretic.
>
Where have you been? The astral plane has been superseded long ago but
astral spheres and parabolloids of 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation. Far more
comfortable and roomier. I recently heard that this fall a new 4-dimensional
model is to be released. Keep up with the news in
www.astraltopology.bollocks
regards
leo
Von
enough then we can see into it.
Astral project can be learned. Now days it's no big deal. The third eye is
one way to see into it and the other way is with practice and of course so
called death.
Von
The Heretic <equa...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3979E0...@concentric.net...
> Think about this question, Where is it located?
>
> Before you answer, think about what you can do on the astral plane with
> your astral body. Walk thru walls, fly, etc....
>
> So then....again where is it located?
>
> Strange question....it seems one cannot point to an exact location and
> say "Here, this is where the astral plane exists".
>
> Maybe.....just maybe, one is asking the wrong question.
>
> Maybe the question should be:
> -----Are you and have you been ALL ALONG in the "Astral", and you just
> THINK you're in the 'heavy dense physical world'.
>
> The Heretic.
>
jan sand
Jan Sand
On 22 Jul 2000 14:10:29 EDT, The Heretic <equa...@concentric.net>
wrote:
Renoncer
Entrance has something to do with an elctro-mechanical field
surrounding a rotating cylinder. This is where all those socks
go when you put them in the clothes dryer. R
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rimu Atkinson
Von
All the dimension are right here intertwined with our own dimension now.
When one dies (so called) he does not go to some far off place. He stays
right here in the same spot. If we can tune our self into a higher or lower
rate of vibrations then we will see things that belong in those wavelengths
as you say.
Heaven and hell are right here now. Death is life and life is death right
here now.
Right ? :)
Von
Rimu Atkinson <ri...@xtra.co.nz.go.away.spamming.bastard> wrote in message
news:964323995.159029@news...
Fr.Tom
Tom
"The Heretic" <equa...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3979E0...@concentric.net...
> Think about this question, Where is it located?
>
Nephthys
we will see things that belong in those wavelengths as you say.
Excuse my ignorance, but what procedure would I have to follow in order
to tune into these wavelengths?
--
^Xx> *Nephthys* <xX^
"Millions long for immortality who do not
know what to do with themselves on a rainy
Sunday afternoon." Susan Ertz
E-Mail: Neph...@hushmail.com
Web-page: Http://www.holographic1.freeserve.co.uk
The incredible Sulk
:-)
The incredible Sulk
Nephthys wrote:
> If we can tune our self into a higher or lower rate of vibrations then
> we will see things that belong in those wavelengths as you say.
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what procedure would I have to follow in order
> to tune into these wavelengths?
>
Take drugs.
The incredible Sulk
"Fr.Tom" wrote:
> Why would you ever believe that it exists at all?
> Tom
>
Because it is a smpler way of explianing some odd subjective experiences than
anything else propunded to date?
Watcher
Watcher
"The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
news:397AFE62...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
Von
Von
The incredible Sulk <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
news:397AFE01...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
The incredible Sulk
Watcher wrote:
> Such as?
Oh - the ability for ideas to 'catch on', the way we can actually leran
anything att all from oure parents, where ideas 'come from', what dreams are
all about, how to tell what is going on elsewhere when you are here, dreamtime
etc. etc. etc.
>
> Watcher
>
> "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
Lucy
razor please.
Lucy
"The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
news:397B0701...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
Mikal 606
What is the experience?
How can you choose the simplest explanation of something with no
explanation?
Do you even know what it means???
"Lucy" <Lu...@reason.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ndEe5.977$Ho2....@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
Mikal 606
You are a fucking idiot.
Fasting and extreme sleep deprivation is safer.
Thats how I had my best "experiences"
"So now you know, who gets mystified."
Mikal 606
>
>
> "Fr.Tom" wrote:
>
> > Why would you ever believe that it exists at all?
> > Tom
> >
>
> Because it is a smpler way of explianing some odd subjective experiences
than
> anything else propunded to date?
>
>
Your quote
"take drugs"
I think that explains it all, doesnt it.
Mikal 606
"Watcher" <Wat...@ray.btclick.net> wrote in message
news:f5De5.951$Ho2....@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> Such as?
> Watcher
>
> "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:397AFE62...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > "Fr.Tom" wrote:
> >
> > > Why would you ever believe that it exists at all?
> > > Tom
> > >
> >
> > Because it is a smpler way of explianing some odd subjective experiences
> than
> > anything else propunded to date?
> >
> >
>
>
With the Name of Allâh WHO is Most Loving and the Merciful
12. WE cause this Word (Dhikr) to pass through the hearts of criminals this
way (like iron rod).
13. They do not bring Faith on it (Al-Qur'ân). Since ancients this has been
the attitude of these types of people.
14. If WE had opened a gate of sky for them and they had started ascending
through it in the day light,
15. Even then they would have said that our eyes are deceiving, nay, we have
been enchanted. (R) 1
16. It is OUR artwork that WE have built many strong forts in the sky,
beautified it (with stars) for the observers.
17. And guarded it from every outcast Shaitân (devil).
18. No Shaitân can find a way in it, except tries to over hear something.
And when he tries to over hear a bright fire flame follows him.
MiKa-il
Watcher
posting a reply. You will see that The Incredible Sulk listed the
experiences for which he believed the astral plane provided the simplest
explanation. If you believe that you need to create an astral plane to
explain these mundane things then you belong with Sulk in cloud cuckoo land
and yes you have demonstrated that YOU do not understand the nature of
Occam's razor. To create an astral plane for the purpose of explaining that
which happens on this plane is allowing entities to multiply. Whilst I am
prepared to point you towards an understanding of Occam's razor I am not
prepared to discuss twaddle. This thread has been cross posted into
alt.philosophy and belongs more properly in alt.self_delusion or in the
magic and mysticism groups. You talk with the mystics and play with your
magic crystals and I will stick to the grown-ups. Watcher
"Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8lffcs$6kg$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Occams razor for what?
> What is the experience?
> How can you choose the simplest explanation of something with no
> explanation?
> Do you even know what it means???
>
>
>
> "Lucy" <Lu...@reason.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ndEe5.977$Ho2....@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> > None of these need to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Occam's
> > razor please.
> > Lucy
> >
> > "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:397B0701...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> > >
> > >
> > > Watcher wrote:
> > >
> > > > Such as?
> > >
> > > Oh - the ability for ideas to 'catch on', the way we can actually
leran
> > > anything att all from oure parents, where ideas 'come from', what
dreams
> > are
> > > all about, how to tell what is going on elsewhere when you are here,
> > dreamtime
> > > etc. etc. etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
Mikal 606
you speak, and telling peopole to take drugs for experiences.
I suggest you shove your righteousness up your ass.
Bye now.
"Watcher" <wat...@ray.btclick.net> wrote in message
news:J5Je5.1035$Ho2....@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
Samantha
Seriously Mikal I am sure that you have something worthwhile to contribute
to this group. Just try not to adopt a combative tone. I guess that you are
still in your teens and reasonably bright. Watcher doesn't sound righteous
to me just his usual self and a bit peeved because of your rude sounding
comments to Lucy about Occam's razor. (Watch out Foggy, you might have a
rival.) Follow Watcher's advice and read who says what. You don't seem to
have sussed out the way the postings work. Don't let him provoke you either.
Watcher hasn't demonstrated the greatest of tact either.
Samantha
"Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8lfn12$ljm$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Mikal 606
"Samantha" <S...@wayahead.com> wrote in message
news:C1Ke5.1047$Ho2....@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
>
> Seriously Mikal I am sure that you have something worthwhile to
contribute
> to this group. Just try not to adopt a combative tone. I guess that you
are
> still in your teens and reasonably bright. Watcher doesn't sound righteous
> to me just his usual self and a bit peeved because of your rude sounding
> comments to Lucy about Occam's razor. (Watch out Foggy, you might have a
> rival.) Follow Watcher's advice and read who says what. You don't seem to
> have sussed out the way the postings work. Don't let him provoke you
either.
> Watcher hasn't demonstrated the greatest of tact either.
> Samantha
No problem.
I havent seen any of you post on the sci groups, where I often post.
Wonder why?
Rp 1m
E=--------- * H
0.4pi Np
R O A D R U N N E R
Samantha
I enjoy lurking in the Philosophy groups and contribute occasionally.
Samantha
I don't even understand the formula if that's what it is.
"Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8lfqo1$521$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Mikal 606
> Sci isn't me, Mikal.
> I enjoy lurking in the Philosophy groups and contribute occasionally.
> Samantha
> I don't even understand the formula if that's what it is.
Oh.The mention of Occams razor lead me to believe otherwise.
The formula is a hysterisis loop equation, which I also use a tracking and
memetic tool.
::smiles::
Samantha
Samantha
hysterisis? I don't understand.
Samantha
Mikal 606
reread old posts, like 6 months from now.
All usenet to me is a big math equation.
There is one of your astral planes.
Your welcome.
0I
"Samantha" <S...@wayahead.com> wrote in message
news:uMKe5.1052$Ho2....@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
Mikal 606
>
>
> Lucy wrote:
>
> > None of these need to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Occam's
> > razor please.
>
> quantum physics. We can all chant together 'its just the way God workd and
go
> back to being ditzy Believers.
>
> Occams razor clearly points out to ME, given MY experiences, that
something
> like an 'astral plane' is *not an unreasonable stab* at bringing together
> disparate phenomena with common features.
>
> If you don't want to use that model, don't. I don't actually give a fuck.
I am
> not here to prove anything to anyone. However if there are open minds
> interested in advanced occult modelling techniques, I have given the
matter
> considerable thought.
>
>
Ok sorry for the cursing.
You definitely have my attention, FWIW!!!
The incredible Sulk
Mikal 606 wrote:
> "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:397AFE33...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Nephthys wrote:
> >
> > > If we can tune our self into a higher or lower rate of vibrations then
> > > we will see things that belong in those wavelengths as you say.
> > >
> > > Excuse my ignorance, but what procedure would I have to follow in order
> > > to tune into these wavelengths?
> > >
> >
> > Take drugs.
> >
> >
>
> You are a fucking idiot.
> Fasting and extreme sleep deprivation is safer.
>
Is it? Depends on what you are driving at the time...
The incredible Sulk
Lucy wrote:
> None of these need to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Occam's
> razor please.
Nothing needs to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Or Gravity, Or
quantum physics. We can all chant together 'its just the way God workd and go
back to being ditzy Believers.
Occams razor clearly points out to ME, given MY experiences, that something
like an 'astral plane' is *not an unreasonable stab* at bringing together
disparate phenomena with common features.
If you don't want to use that model, don't. I don't actually give a fuck. I am
not here to prove anything to anyone. However if there are open minds
interested in advanced occult modelling techniques, I have given the matter
considerable thought.
>
> Lucy
>
> "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:397B0701...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Watcher wrote:
> >
> > > Such as?
> >
> > Oh - the ability for ideas to 'catch on', the way we can actually leran
> > anything att all from oure parents, where ideas 'come from', what dreams
> are
> > all about, how to tell what is going on elsewhere when you are here,
> dreamtime
> > etc. etc. etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Watcher
> > >
> > > "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
The incredible Sulk
Watcher wrote:
> It is traditional, Mikal, to read the posts above the one to which you are
> posting a reply. You will see that The Incredible Sulk listed the
> experiences for which he believed the astral plane provided the simplest
> explanation. If you believe that you need to create an astral plane to
> explain these mundane things then you belong with Sulk in cloud cuckoo land
> and yes you have demonstrated that YOU do not understand the nature of
> Occam's razor. To create an astral plane for the purpose of explaining that
> which happens on this plane is allowing entities to multiply. Whilst I am
> prepared to point you towards an understanding of Occam's razor I am not
> prepared to discuss twaddle. This thread has been cross posted into
> alt.philosophy and belongs more properly in alt.self_delusion or in the
> magic and mysticism groups. You talk with the mystics and play with your
> magic crystals and I will stick to the grown-ups. Watcher
You are a tad sour tonight sonny jim.
Perhaps if I said that the astral plane is the area where Kant's transcendental
aesthetic operates to produce the categories, you might be more recpetive?
No. You just don't like the term because it reeks of New Age Mumbo Jumbo.
Fine, I don't like it for similar reasons: Nevertheless it refers as far as I
can make out from those that use it, to some dim appreciation of a conceptual
space that in some sense is a priori to the apperception of the physical world.
Go back and read your Kant, and your Husserl, and then post a better reply.
>
>
> "Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8lffcs$6kg$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Occams razor for what?
> > What is the experience?
> > How can you choose the simplest explanation of something with no
> > explanation?
> > Do you even know what it means???
> >
> >
> >
> > "Lucy" <Lu...@reason.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:ndEe5.977$Ho2....@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> > > None of these need to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Occam's
> > > razor please.
The incredible Sulk
Mikal 606 wrote:
> I am not the one, watcher, telling people about this mythical plane of which
> you speak, and telling peopole to take drugs for experiences.
> I suggest you shove your righteousness up your ass.
Or up his transcendental aesthetic.
The incredible Sulk
Mikal 606 wrote:
> "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:397AFE62...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > "Fr.Tom" wrote:
> >
> > > Why would you ever believe that it exists at all?
> > > Tom
> > >
> >
> > Because it is a smpler way of explianing some odd subjective experiences
> than
> > anything else propunded to date?
> >
> >
>
> Your quote
>
> "take drugs"
>
> I think that explains it all, doesnt it.
If you say so, oh smug one.
Samantha
it rattle you. His reply is perfectly sound given where he is coming from.
My own view is that notions of an astral plane are not necessary. Thus I
agree with Watcher.
Samantha
"The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
news:397B830B...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> > > > "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in
message
> > > > news:397B0701...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Watcher wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Such as?
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh - the ability for ideas to 'catch on', the way we can actually
> > leran
> > > > > anything att all from oure parents, where ideas 'come from', what
> > dreams
> > > > are
> > > > > all about, how to tell what is going on elsewhere when you are
here,
> > > > dreamtime
> > > > > etc. etc. etc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Watcher
> > > > > >
Samantha
it rattle you. His reply is perfectly sound given where he is coming from.
My own view is that notions of an astral plane are not necessary. Thus I
Kerikturd
or share with cats?
>> Why would you ever believe that it exists at all?
>> Tom
>>
>
>Because it is a smpler way of explianing some odd subjective experiences than
>anything else propunded to date?
>
59 BUICK 59
If you want a car with a ride like mine
Then get yourself a Buick 59
David Bos
The incredible Sulk wrote:
>
> Watcher wrote:
>
> > Such as?
>
> Oh - the ability for ideas to 'catch on', the way we can actually leran
> anything att all from oure parents, where ideas 'come from', what dreams are
> all about, how to tell what is going on elsewhere when you are here, dreamtime
> etc. etc. etc.
one thing failing still: the mechanism, or -how- does the "astral plane"
explain these things?
david
David Bos
Mikal 606 wrote:
>
> Occams razor for what?
> What is the experience?
> How can you choose the simplest explanation of something with no
> explanation?
isn't the point of the astral plane to explain some things?
david
The Heretic
>
> If we can tune our self into a higher or lower rate of vibrations then
> we will see things that belong in those wavelengths as you say.
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what procedure would I have to follow in order
> to tune into these wavelengths?
Did you not get the original post?
In the original post, I wrote the "possibility", that you haven't gone
anywhere, that in fact you are still in your astral world, and just
think you're in your 'physical world'.
So then 'maybe' this is the realization that mystics, masters talk
about.
Makes sense, cause in order to get back to the astral world, a part of
you has to stay there, if yu didn't you would lose all touch with it,
right.
>
> --
> ^Xx> *Nephthys* <xX^
> "Millions long for immortality who do not
> know what to do with themselves on a rainy
> Sunday afternoon." Susan Ertz
>
> E-Mail: Neph...@hushmail.com
> Web-page: Http://www.holographic1.freeserve.co.uk
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
David Bos
The incredible Sulk wrote:
>
> Watcher wrote:
>
> > It is traditional, Mikal, to read the posts above the one to which you are
> > posting a reply. You will see that The Incredible Sulk listed the
> > experiences for which he believed the astral plane provided the simplest
> > explanation. If you believe that you need to create an astral plane to
> > explain these mundane things then you belong with Sulk in cloud cuckoo land
> > and yes you have demonstrated that YOU do not understand the nature of
> > Occam's razor. To create an astral plane for the purpose of explaining that
> > which happens on this plane is allowing entities to multiply. Whilst I am
> > prepared to point you towards an understanding of Occam's razor I am not
> > prepared to discuss twaddle. This thread has been cross posted into
> > alt.philosophy and belongs more properly in alt.self_delusion or in the
> > magic and mysticism groups. You talk with the mystics and play with your
> > magic crystals and I will stick to the grown-ups. Watcher
>
> You are a tad sour tonight sonny jim.
> Perhaps if I said that the astral plane is the area where Kant's transcendental
> aesthetic operates to produce the categories, you might be more recpetive?
Just a different name for the same thing: still no explanation.
david
>
> No. You just don't like the term because it reeks of New Age Mumbo Jumbo.
>
> Fine, I don't like it for similar reasons: Nevertheless it refers as far as I
> can make out from those that use it, to some dim appreciation of a conceptual
> space that in some sense is a priori to the apperception of the physical world.
>
> Go back and read your Kant, and your Husserl, and then post a better reply.
>
> >
> >
> > "Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:8lffcs$6kg$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > Occams razor for what?
> > > What is the experience?
> > > How can you choose the simplest explanation of something with no
> > > explanation?
> > > Do you even know what it means???
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Lucy" <Lu...@reason.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:ndEe5.977$Ho2....@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> > > > None of these need to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Occam's
> > > > razor please.
> > > > Lucy
> > > >
> > > > "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:397B0701...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Watcher wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Such as?
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh - the ability for ideas to 'catch on', the way we can actually
> > leran
> > > > > anything att all from oure parents, where ideas 'come from', what
> > dreams
> > > > are
> > > > > all about, how to tell what is going on elsewhere when you are here,
> > > > dreamtime
> > > > > etc. etc. etc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Watcher
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > > news:397AFE62...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Fr.Tom" wrote:
> > > > > > >
David Bos
The incredible Sulk wrote:
>
> Lucy wrote:
>
> > None of these need to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Occam's
> > razor please.
>
> Nothing needs to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Or Gravity, Or
> quantum physics. We can all chant together 'its just the way God workd and go
> back to being ditzy Believers.
>
> Occams razor clearly points out to ME, given MY experiences, that something
> like an 'astral plane' is *not an unreasonable stab* at bringing together
> disparate phenomena with common features.
>
> If you don't want to use that model, don't.
A model should include a mechanism.
So far "astral plane" is not much more than two words. We have a "what"
but no "how".
david
The Heretic
>
> Why would you ever believe that it exists at all?
> Tom
Which one are you talking about? The 'physical world' or the 'astral
world'.
(For those in alt.philosophy, put in your own definition for the 'astral
world'. I'm sure you get the gist of what I mean when I use that word.
>
> "The Heretic" <equa...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:3979E0...@concentric.net...
> > Think about this question, Where is it located?
> >
> > Before you answer, think about what you can do on the astral plane with
> > your astral body. Walk thru walls, fly, etc....
> >
> > So then....again where is it located?
> >
> > Strange question....it seems one cannot point to an exact location and
> > say "Here, this is where the astral plane exists".
> >
> > Maybe.....just maybe, one is asking the wrong question.
> >
> > Maybe the question should be:
> > -----Are you and have you been ALL ALONG in the "Astral", and you just
> > THINK you're in the 'heavy dense physical world'.
> >
> > The Heretic.
> >
> > "Physical reality is just a state of mind"
> >
> > --
> > "Everything you
> > can imagine is true,
> > so choose your thoughts thoughtfully,
> > choose your beliefs carefully
> > and choose your REALITY wisely..."
Von
Then you are right. :)
Von
The Heretic <equa...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:397C5B...@concentric.net...
Guttersnipe
>Perhaps if I said that the astral plane is the area where Kant's
>transcendental aesthetic operates to produce the categories, you
>might be more recpetive?
Kant was incorrect--The morality of an action is ultimately
determined by the effects of that action. Lying is not always
wrong, which Kant ironically demonstrated with his Case of the
Inquiring Murderer. He never was able to produce a satisfactory
defense of why one should not lie to save another's life.
Modern Kantian duty ethics is very simular to rule
utilitarianism. It makes no sense to me that something should
be an 'end in itself'. It is like a antecedent with no
consequent, an action with no reaction. I would assert that
what we think of as morality is just our reason exploring our
instincts. When asking the questions: why as humans we prefer
happiness over saddness, comfort over discomfort, the only
rational answer that I've come up with so far is that we have an
instinct for survival which manifests itself through our desire
to be happy.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
The incredible Sulk
Samantha wrote:
> I have read Kant and Husserl. I don't like Watcher's tone either. Don't let
> it rattle you. His reply is perfectly sound given where he is coming from.
> My own view is that notions of an astral plane are not necessary.
Neiher is it necessary to posit that the earth moves around the sun, not vice
versa.
But it simplifies certain things.
So with the 'astral plane'. We are talking about the nature of mental, emotional
and sensational experience. Sometimes it is easier to turn the world on its head
and make these functions of a 'mental area' along with the physical world
itself, rather than have as ones basic assumption the credo that the world is a
physical place, and our only access to it is via five senses.
IMHO neither is a real explanation. Both are 'a priori' to the investigations in
hand. Bothe define the entities and categories experienced, upon which science
can then be done.
It depends on whether you want to give structure to your waking life, or
structure to your internal life (as a materialist would see it).
> Thus I
> agree with Watcher.
> Samantha
>
> "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:397B830B...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Watcher wrote:
> >
> > > It is traditional, Mikal, to read the posts above the one to which you
> are
> > > posting a reply. You will see that The Incredible Sulk listed the
> > > experiences for which he believed the astral plane provided the simplest
> > > explanation. If you believe that you need to create an astral plane to
> > > explain these mundane things then you belong with Sulk in cloud cuckoo
> land
> > > and yes you have demonstrated that YOU do not understand the nature of
> > > Occam's razor. To create an astral plane for the purpose of explaining
> that
> > > which happens on this plane is allowing entities to multiply. Whilst I
> am
> > > prepared to point you towards an understanding of Occam's razor I am not
> > > prepared to discuss twaddle. This thread has been cross posted into
> > > alt.philosophy and belongs more properly in alt.self_delusion or in the
> > > magic and mysticism groups. You talk with the mystics and play with your
> > > magic crystals and I will stick to the grown-ups. Watcher
> >
> > You are a tad sour tonight sonny jim.
> > Perhaps if I said that the astral plane is the area where Kant's
> transcendental
> > aesthetic operates to produce the categories, you might be more recpetive?
> >
> > No. You just don't like the term because it reeks of New Age Mumbo Jumbo.
> >
> > Fine, I don't like it for similar reasons: Nevertheless it refers as far
> as I
> > can make out from those that use it, to some dim appreciation of a
> conceptual
> > space that in some sense is a priori to the apperception of the physical
> world.
> >
> > Go back and read your Kant, and your Husserl, and then post a better
> reply.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8lffcs$6kg$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > Occams razor for what?
> > > > What is the experience?
> > > > How can you choose the simplest explanation of something with no
> > > > explanation?
> > > > Do you even know what it means???
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Lucy" <Lu...@reason.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:ndEe5.977$Ho2....@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> > > > > None of these need to be explained by inventing an astral plane.
> Occam's
> > > > > razor please.
> > > > > Lucy
> > > > >
> > > > > "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> > > > > news:397B0701...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Watcher wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Such as?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh - the ability for ideas to 'catch on', the way we can actually
> > > leran
> > > > > > anything att all from oure parents, where ideas 'come from', what
> > > dreams
> > > > > are
> > > > > > all about, how to tell what is going on elsewhere when you are
> here,
> > > > > dreamtime
> > > > > > etc. etc. etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Watcher
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > message
> > > > > > > news:397AFE62...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Fr.Tom" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why would you ever believe that it exists at all?
> > > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
The incredible Sulk
David Bos wrote:
>
> > You are a tad sour tonight sonny jim.
> > Perhaps if I said that the astral plane is the area where Kant's transcendental
> > aesthetic operates to produce the categories, you might be more recpetive?
>
> Just a different name for the same thing: still no explanation.
How do you turn experience into a worldview?
I am sorry - I haven't go time to go into this in boring detail. If you are curious,
join me in alt.magick, where I tend to say more...
The incredible Sulk
Guttersnipe wrote:
> >The incredible Sulk wrote:
> >Perhaps if I said that the astral plane is the area where Kant's
> >transcendental aesthetic operates to produce the categories, you
> >might be more recpetive?
>
> Kant was incorrect--The morality of an action is ultimately
> determined by the effects of that action.
Who introduce morality? Not me. I wasn't talking morals, and neither, in
the context I quoted him, was kant.
We are talking about those aspects of experience whaich are a priori to
our apperception of them as objects.
The incredible Sulk
David Bos wrote:
> Mikal 606 wrote:
> >
> > Occams razor for what?
> > What is the experience?
> > How can you choose the simplest explanation of something with no
> > explanation?
>
> isn't the point of the astral plane to explain some things?
Its a working tool. Liek don't eat shelfisjh wehn there is an R in the
month. Like dropping weights on your foot hurts.
>
A way of grouping together certains classes of experience under one roof
and giving it a name that's all.
>
>
> david
The incredible Sulk
David Bos wrote:
> The incredible Sulk wrote:
> >
> > Lucy wrote:
> >
> > > None of these need to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Occam's
> > > razor please.
> >
> > Nothing needs to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Or Gravity, Or
> > quantum physics. We can all chant together 'its just the way God workd and go
> > back to being ditzy Believers.
> >
> > Occams razor clearly points out to ME, given MY experiences, that something
> > like an 'astral plane' is *not an unreasonable stab* at bringing together
> > disparate phenomena with common features.
> >
> > If you don't want to use that model, don't.
>
> A model should include a mechanism.
Mechanism for what? Don't see what you are driving at here.
The incredible Sulk
David Bos wrote:
> The incredible Sulk wrote:
> >
> > Watcher wrote:
> >
> > > Such as?
> >
> > Oh - the ability for ideas to 'catch on', the way we can actually leran
> > anything att all from oure parents, where ideas 'come from', what dreams are
> > all about, how to tell what is going on elsewhere when you are here, dreamtime
> > etc. etc. etc.
>
> one thing failing still: the mechanism, or -how- does the "astral plane"
> explain these things?
Realism: Reality is a function of the 'outside real world' as reflected through the
'cosnciousness of the observer'
Astralism: Reality is a function of the astral plane reflected through the
'consciouness of the perceiver'
Actually, I tend to use a more intermediate model
Sorcery: Reality is the reflection of an unknown 'data source' through the software
of something called the 'self'
In this meta model, both realism and astralism become simply different bits of
software to be run...:-)
>
>
> david
Gerrit Deppe
>wrote:
>
>>Think about this question, Where is it located?
>>
>>Before you answer, think about what you can do on the astral plane with
>>your astral body. Walk thru walls, fly, etc....
>>
>>So then....again where is it located?
Is it not everywhere? At once, and at the same time? Is it not a timeless
place where time slows to a crawl and the slower it gets, the brighter and
closer everything seems? Like, Saturn and Neptune for instance. And two
people meeting and communicating while being miles appart; on the
"otherside" as in death; and, in ones dreams.
Maybe the "astral" Llokka is more of a particular frequency of the state
of Timelessness.
The buzzing reaches a "harmonic convergence" and time and space dissapear
within the buzzing of the Spirit/Body.
?
Gerrit
Von
For example when one so calls dies the whole idea is to raise your
frequency. By doing that one goes to that frequency or plane. On the other
hand if one dies at a low rate of vibration like in suicide for example then
they will get stick on a very low plane The astral plane right next to
earth where some people can see ghosts is called the middle plane.
Von
Gerrit Deppe <ger...@auracom.com> wrote in message
news:gerrit-2407...@ts7-d1.hfx.auracom.com...
David Bos
The incredible Sulk wrote:
>
> David Bos wrote:
>
> > The incredible Sulk wrote:
> > >
> > > Lucy wrote:
> > >
> > > > None of these need to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Occam's
> > > > razor please.
> > >
> > > Nothing needs to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Or Gravity, Or
> > > quantum physics. We can all chant together 'its just the way God workd and go
> > > back to being ditzy Believers.
> > >
> > > Occams razor clearly points out to ME, given MY experiences, that something
> > > like an 'astral plane' is *not an unreasonable stab* at bringing together
> > > disparate phenomena with common features.
> > >
> > > If you don't want to use that model, don't.
> >
> > A model should include a mechanism.
>
> Mechanism for what? Don't see what you are driving at here.
A mechanism for how it is that an astral plane brings together certain
disparate phenomena with common features, other than being just a word
(two words).
Eg what are these common features (other than we not being able to
explain them scientificaly). Or how it is that the existance of an
astral plane explains these phenomena.
david
David Bos
The incredible Sulk wrote:
>
> David Bos wrote:
>
> > The incredible Sulk wrote:
> > >
You have defined terms, not provided a mechanism.
david
>
> >
> >
> > david
David Bos
The incredible Sulk wrote:
>
> David Bos wrote:
>
> >
> > > You are a tad sour tonight sonny jim.
> > > Perhaps if I said that the astral plane is the area where Kant's transcendental
> > > aesthetic operates to produce the categories, you might be more recpetive?
> >
> > Just a different name for the same thing: still no explanation.
>
> How do you turn experience into a worldview?
Experience tells you something about 'how the world works' and hence
what to expect from the world, or how to look at the world. That's your
worldview right there.
david
>
> I am sorry - I haven't go time to go into this in boring detail. If you are curious,
> join me in alt.magick, where I tend to say more...
i wouldn't want to bore you.
besides i am more into philosophy than into any form of magic.
david
Dissident
like fury you might eventually get an answer. The problem, however, seems to
be that these astral plane types are usually not capable of giving a direct
reply. There may be some exceptions but all the people I have ever heard
waxing lyrical about astralism are as bad as fundamentalist Bible punchers
in their unwillingness to think critically about their own ideas. It's sad
really.
Dissident
"David Bos" <davidbo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:397DA7D9...@xs4all.nl...
>
>
> The incredible Sulk wrote:
> >
> > David Bos wrote:
> >
The Heretic
>
> >On 22 Jul 2000 14:10:29 EDT, The Heretic <equa...@concentric.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Think about this question, Where is it located?
> >>
> >>Before you answer, think about what you can do on the astral plane with
> >>your astral body. Walk thru walls, fly, etc....
> >>
> >>So then....again where is it located?
>
> Is it not everywhere? At once, and at the same time?
See the dilemma, so then if its everywhere, but here we have the
'physical' world.
So then one is led to the conclusion that there really is no 'physical'
world, but we just have 'duped' ourselves into thinking there is.
Von
Heretic
We can not see most of the wavelengths from infer-red to ultraviolet. We
can't even see radio waves, but we know they are out there. Us humans can
see almost nothing and even a dog or cat can see, hear, smell, feel much
more then we can ever do.
Things that have a high or very low rate of vibration can not been seen be
us. We are multi-dimension beings and live on all of the planes at the same
time, but only are aware of the plane we think we see.
Life is also at a certain rate of vibration. So therefor it is not real.
It is created for us according to what we think we see and yes as you said,
"we just have 'duped' ourselves into thinking there is." That is the
biggest con job there is of this universe. We are not the physical body
and in fact we are not who we think we are. Most people have no idea who
they really are and so they are stuck in this illusion called life.
The true meaning of life is to find our real self and then the game is over.
Von
The Heretic <equa...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:397DBB...@concentric.net...
Dissident
persuasive.
Dissident
"Von" <V4...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:_njf5.8097$Uo6.4...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The incredible Sulk
Von wrote:
> The true meaning of life is to find our real self and then the game is over.
>
Or just beginning....:-)
The incredible Sulk
David Bos wrote:
> The incredible Sulk wrote:
> >
> > David Bos wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > You are a tad sour tonight sonny jim.
> > > > Perhaps if I said that the astral plane is the area where Kant's transcendental
> > > > aesthetic operates to produce the categories, you might be more recpetive?
> > >
> > > Just a different name for the same thing: still no explanation.
> >
> > How do you turn experience into a worldview?
>
> Experience tells you something about 'how the world works' and hence
> what to expect from the world, or how to look at the world. That's your
> worldview right there.
Ah. And where does this experience come from? And is it ordered or just random noise? And
it what ways is it ordered?
> > I am sorry - I haven't go time to go into this in boring detail. If you are curious,
> > join me in alt.magick, where I tend to say more...
>
> i wouldn't want to bore you.
> besides i am more into philosophy than into any form of magic.
>
Is there a difference?
>
> david
Gerrit Deppe
<equa...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Gerrit Deppe wrote:
>>
>> >On 22 Jul 2000 14:10:29 EDT, The Heretic <equa...@concentric.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Think about this question, Where is it located?
>> >>
>> >>Before you answer, think about what you can do on the astral plane with
>> >>your astral body. Walk thru walls, fly, etc....
>> >>
>> >>So then....again where is it located?
>>
>> Is it not everywhere? At once, and at the same time?
>
>See the dilemma, so then if its everywhere, but here we have the
>'physical' world.
>
>So then one is led to the conclusion that there really is no 'physical'
>world, but we just have 'duped' ourselves into thinking there is.
BINGO!!
g.
Gerrit Deppe
<Diss...@Large.com> wrote:
>Now in this posting you are persuasive. I am not convinced but it is
>persuasive.
>Dissident
I think Heretic answered quite well in regards to "reality" as a
choice-of-perceptions. When the "choice" dissapears, or slows down a
little bit... then the WAY IT IS opens-up even more possibilities (and
more interpretations and perceptions of those realities)
If the astral is everywhere and seems knowhere... then it is in the
NOWment that the astral is located.
Ye oldde paradox, once again...
Gerrit
>
>"Von" <V4...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:_njf5.8097$Uo6.4...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> I must complement you today because you hit it right on the nose. The
>> Heretic
>>
>> We can not see most of the wavelengths from infer-red to ultraviolet. We
>> can't even see radio waves, but we know they are out there. Us humans can
>> see almost nothing and even a dog or cat can see, hear, smell, feel much
>> more then we can ever do.
>>
>> Things that have a high or very low rate of vibration can not been seen be
>> us. We are multi-dimension beings and live on all of the planes at the
>same
>> time, but only are aware of the plane we think we see.
>>
>> Life is also at a certain rate of vibration. So therefor it is not real.
>> It is created for us according to what we think we see and yes as you
>said,
>> "we just have 'duped' ourselves into thinking there is." That is the
>> biggest con job there is of this universe. We are not the physical body
>> and in fact we are not who we think we are. Most people have no idea who
>> they really are and so they are stuck in this illusion called life.
>>
>> The true meaning of life is to find our real self and then the game is
>over.
>>
>> Von
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The Heretic <equa...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> news:397DBB...@concentric.net...
>> > Gerrit Deppe wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >On 22 Jul 2000 14:10:29 EDT, The Heretic <equa...@concentric.net>
>> > > >wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >>Think about this question, Where is it located?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Before you answer, think about what you can do on the astral plane
>> with
>> > > >>your astral body. Walk thru walls, fly, etc....
>> > > >>
>> > > >>So then....again where is it located?
>> > >
>> > > Is it not everywhere? At once, and at the same time?
>> >
>> > See the dilemma, so then if its everywhere, but here we have the
>> > 'physical' world.
>> >
>> > So then one is led to the conclusion that there really is no 'physical'
>> > world, but we just have 'duped' ourselves into thinking there is.
>> >
>> >
The incredible Sulk
David Bos wrote:
> The incredible Sulk wrote:
> >
> > David Bos wrote:
> >
> > > The incredible Sulk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Lucy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > None of these need to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Occam's
> > > > > razor please.
> > > >
> > > > Nothing needs to be explained by inventing an astral plane. Or Gravity, Or
> > > > quantum physics. We can all chant together 'its just the way God workd and go
> > > > back to being ditzy Believers.
> > > >
> > > > Occams razor clearly points out to ME, given MY experiences, that something
> > > > like an 'astral plane' is *not an unreasonable stab* at bringing together
> > > > disparate phenomena with common features.
> > > >
> > > > If you don't want to use that model, don't.
> > >
> > > A model should include a mechanism.
> >
> > Mechanism for what? Don't see what you are driving at here.
>
> A mechanism for how it is that an astral plane brings together certain
> disparate phenomena with common features, other than being just a word
> (two words).
Well tell me how 'the ocean' brings together 'water' and 'waves' and 'sand' and I will
tell you...
Seems to me its just a way of grouping those elements together in a way that seems to
be useful.
The only mechanism that is at work is ones own pattern recognition software...
>
> Eg what are these common features (other than we not being able to
> explain them scientificaly). Or how it is that the existance of an
> astral plane explains these phenomena.
>
You don't need quantum physics to explain how a bow and arrow works. You don't need an
'astral plane' to explain the majority of experiences you have either. But, in the
corners of experience, there are weird things. People who do extreme and aberrant
things to themselves -who undergo extreme stress, brain trauma, near death, sleep
deprivation, and many other things - or even insanity - seem to become aware of things
that are connected. The key uniting element of these techniques seems to be to
disturb, or halt, the normal flow of consciousness, without actually becoming
unconscious (or dead).
At these times, strong feelings surface, and the world subjectively changes. Different
entities emerge out of the same data. Where does this new pattern making ability get
its patterns from? How come sometimes you can imagine things you had no idea you knew?
If you want to call it 'collective unsconscious' I don't have a problem with that. I
have occasionally called it the 'astral plane'. Mostly I tend to call it something more
like 'the subconscious Internet' - something like a vast data network with countless
servers on it, all loaded with software. Download some, and you can see unimaginable
things - or go mad. Normally you just access it through one single normal program. You
see normality. You don't need to know that anything other than the picture on your
screen of life even exists.
Sometimes though, the software goes wrong, or gets a virus, or blue screens on you.
Then you need to some kind of handle on the operating system and the Internet you are
plugged into.
Mostly we are just users. Some of us, who are born fiddlers, like to tamper with the
operating system and surf the net. If God hadn't intended us to be magicians, he
wouldn' have given us a 'C' compiler....:-)
As to how it works? No idea whatsoever. Nevertheless there is *something* buried -
either deep out there - or perhaps deep inside our subconsciousess? - that has more
connectivity and more power to affect us than we normally think. You can't explain it
in trems of 'normal' reality. It is far simpler to explain 'normal relaity in terms of
it.....:-(
So I can't, I am afraid, give you any convincing 'proof' as to why it seems a useful
concept - any more than you could do the same with quantum physics to a mediaeval
archer. If you aren't messing with your gead, you can safely ignore it and go back to
sleep.
BUT. To reiterate what I said about Kant, I could say that it is a useful thing to say,
that the 'astral plane' is where the transcendental aesthetics are somehow 'born' :-)
The world of the 'a priori'. Where philsophy isn't an academic exercise, its a real
living and thoroughly practical science.
>
> david
>
> >
> > >
> > > So far "astral plane" is not much more than two words. We have a "what"
> > > but no "how".
> > >
How does the ocean?
I can't answer that either?
How does gravity? It just does.
How does Time? Space? They are concepts - yardsticks - things to group and refer to
other things with, for purposes of gaining some handle on their behaviours.
>
> > > david
The incredible Sulk
David Bos wrote:
> The incredible Sulk wrote:
> >
> > David Bos wrote:
> >
> > > The incredible Sulk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Watcher wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Such as?
> > > >
> > > > Oh - the ability for ideas to 'catch on', the way we can actually leran
> > > > anything att all from oure parents, where ideas 'come from', what dreams are
> > > > all about, how to tell what is going on elsewhere when you are here, dreamtime
> > > > etc. etc. etc.
> > >
> > > one thing failing still: the mechanism, or -how- does the "astral plane"
> > > explain these things?
> >
> > Realism: Reality is a function of the 'outside real world' as reflected through the
> > 'cosnciousness of the observer'
> > Astralism: Reality is a function of the astral plane reflected through the
> > 'consciouness of the perceiver'
> >
> > Actually, I tend to use a more intermediate model
> >
> > Sorcery: Reality is the reflection of an unknown 'data source' through the software
> > of something called the 'self'
> >
> > In this meta model, both realism and astralism become simply different bits of
> > software to be run...:-)
>
> You have defined terms, not provided a mechanism.
>
Provide me with a mechanism for time, and then you may have your answer.
>
> david
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > david
The incredible Sulk
Dissident wrote:
> Keep at it, David. If you sink your teeth into his trouserleg and hang on
> like fury you might eventually get an answer. The problem, however, seems to
> be that these astral plane types are usually not capable of giving a direct
> reply. There may be some exceptions but all the people I have ever heard
> waxing lyrical about astralism are as bad as fundamentalist Bible punchers
> in their unwillingness to think critically about their own ideas. It's sad
> really.
Don't get sassy. Youi are as bad as Schuler with his 'prove it'
Prove that time exists. Go on. Prove it. Can't be done. Its just 'a priori'
Dissident
(and con artists).
Dissident
"The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
news:397E01B0...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
>
>
> David Bos wrote:
>
> > The incredible Sulk wrote:
> > >
> > > David Bos wrote:
> > >
> > > >
Dissident
from the challenge by throwing down an irrelevant challenge of your own.
Dissident
"The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
news:397E08D9...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
>
>
> David Bos wrote:
>
> > The incredible Sulk wrote:
> > >
> > > David Bos wrote:
> > >
Dissident
courtesy and a spirit of genuine enquiry. His request is reasonable. If you
cannot respond show some intellectual honesty and say so. There is no shame
in admitting that your statements are based on instinct or wishful thinking
or whatever. There should be great shame in intellectual dishonesty.
Dissident
"The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
news:397E092C...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
Mikal 606
answers of your own, samwatcher.
Idiot.
What, you have no answers to anything, do you??You just expect everyone to
"fill you in"-a lousy way to troll,BTW,.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////
In avoiding the question you indicate that you are. You have now avoided it
twice. I have no more patience with you. You will be entered in my ignore
poster list and will no longer irritate me.
Dissident
"Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8ll1ia$8c0$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "Dissident" <Diss...@Large.com> wrote in message
> news:0unf5.134$U2....@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> > Afraid to suggest an answer to it?
> > Dissident
> >
> No.
> Why on earth should I be afraid of posting to a newsgroup?
>
>
"Dissident" <Diss...@Large.com> wrote in message
news:pLnf5.138$U2....@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> The ball was and is in your court. It is intellectual dishonesty to run
away
> from the challenge by throwing down an irrelevant challenge of your own.
> Dissident
>
> "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
Mikal 606
"Dissident" <Diss...@Large.com> wrote in message
> I still think that you should answer the man. He has treated you with
> courtesy and a spirit of genuine enquiry. His request is reasonable. If
you
> cannot respond show some intellectual honesty and say so. There is no
shame
> in admitting that your statements are based on instinct or wishful
thinking
> or whatever. There should be great shame in intellectual dishonesty.
> Dissident
You should know.
R O A D R U N N E R
The incredible Sulk
Dissident wrote:
> Yes. Philosophy is for lovers of knowledge. Magic is for lovers of dreams
> (and con artists).
ah. Then your magic isn't my magic.
My magic is sort of 'applied philosophy'. Mental engineering if you like.
Although I do agree, you need more than intellect to do it. Strong feelings,
the ability to evoke and control them are indeed key.
But who would do engineering, if they didn't like building things and making
things happen?
Without motivation, none of the knowledge ever gets applied.
I get the image of an artist, spending all the years of his life sharpening his
pencil point to the most exact fine line he can, and never actually drawing
anything :-)
>
> Dissident
>
> "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:397E01B0...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > David Bos wrote:
> >
> > > The incredible Sulk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David Bos wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
The incredible Sulk
Dissident wrote:
> I still think that you should answer the man.
I have done. But he is asking unsanswerable questions.
> He has treated you with
> courtesy and a spirit of genuine enquiry. His request is reasonable.
No, in fact it isn't. You can't explain a mechansim for a concept. You use
concepts to build mechanisms. Not the other way around.
> If you
> cannot respond show some intellectual honesty and say so.
I have done that. I have clearly outlined a 'concept'. I still do not see how a
concept has a mechanism. Concepts are a priori with respect to mechanisms.
> There is no shame
> in admitting that your statements are based on instinct or wishful thinking
> or whatever
Well they aren't. They are based on personal experience.
> . There should be great shame in intellectual dishonesty.
Indeed. So stop asking the unanswerable, and if you can, answer my question.
What is the mechanism of Time?
>
> Dissident
>
> "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
Von
What is, is. I don't need your confirmation, but thanks.
Von
Dissident <Diss...@Large.com> wrote in message
news:_5kf5.68$U2....@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
> Now in this posting you are persuasive. I am not convinced but it is
> persuasive.
> Dissident
>
The incredible Sulk
Dissident wrote:
> The ball was and is in your court. It is intellectual dishonesty to run away
> from the challenge by throwing down an irrelevant challenge of your own.
> Dissident
>
I am merely pointing out that there is a class of stupid questions of which the
original one was one, and mine was another.
I refer you to your own words.
But since you merely ignore what I say and continue to repeat your own stupid
questions, I defer to the default assumption that you are trolling
I have said all I wish to say. If you don't want to consider it in its own
terms, then you can, in the best possible taste, and subject to your own
interpretations, and having done all necessary reasearch into meanings, and
lingusitics, fuck off.
>
> "The incredible Sulk" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:397E08D9...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > David Bos wrote:
> >
> > > The incredible Sulk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David Bos wrote:
> > > >
Dissident
Dissidentnews:397E0FEF...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
>
>
> Dissident wrote:
>
> > Yes. Philosophy is for lovers of knowledge. Magic is for lovers of
dreams
> > (and con artists).
>
> ah. Then your magic isn't my magic.
>
> My magic is sort of 'applied philosophy'. Mental engineering if you like.
> Although I do agree, you need more than intellect to do it. Strong
feelings,
> the ability to evoke and control them are indeed key.
> But who would do engineering, if they didn't like building things and
making
> things happen?
>
> Without motivation, none of the knowledge ever gets applied.
>
> I get the image of an artist, spending all the years of his life
sharpening his
> pencil point to the most exact fine line he can, and never actually
drawing
> anything :-)
>
>
> >
> > Dissident
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > David Bos wrote:
> > >
> > > > The incredible Sulk wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > David Bos wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
art
<Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote:
>Provide me with a mechanism for time, and then you may have your answer.
A clock.
Art
DynamiK 1
> Think about this question, Where is it located?
>
> Before you answer, think about what you can do on the astral plane with
> your astral body. Walk thru walls, fly, etc....
>
> So then....again where is it located?
>
> say "Here, this is where the astral plane exists".
>
> Maybe.....just maybe, one is asking the wrong question.
>
> Maybe the question should be:
> -----Are you and have you been ALL ALONG in the "Astral", and you just
> THINK you're in the 'heavy dense physical world'.
>
> The Heretic.
>
> "Physical reality is just a state of mind"
>
> --
> "Everything you
> can imagine is true,
> so choose your thoughts thoughtfully,
> choose your beliefs carefully
> and choose your REALITY wisely..."
Yes, I agree, that location is not the issue!
I think the question is more of "At what frequency is the astral plane?"
If you follow up astral projection techniques, you will find that the Astral
body (which everyone has) is a magnitude higher in frequency than the
physical body. And wait, there's more! The astral plane is only the next
plane, many more have been spoken of.
D
The incredible Sulk
art wrote:
Oh. OK a mechanism or the astral plane is a mind.
>
> Art
The incredible Sulk
DynamiK 1 wrote:
> Yes, I agree, that location is not the issue!
> I think the question is more of "At what frequency is the astral plane?"
I would have to say bollocks.
The experience of the 'astral plane' is a priori to that of space time.
It is of awareness of the space where concepts like space and time seem like
choices to ne taken up or not.
Where is the software on your computer? On a CD-ROM? In the memory? On the disk?
On the screen?
None of these and all of these.
Mostly its in the minds of those who wrote it, wherever that is...
We have concepts that are independent of space-time. Why get hung up in this
stupid question ?
>
> If you follow up astral projection techniques, you will find that the Astral
> body (which everyone has) is a magnitude higher in frequency than the
> physical body. And wait, there's more! The astral plane is only the next
> plane, many more have been spoken of.
Actually those that like complexity speak of the etheric as being the next one
up, the astral is slightly above that. And a mental one a bit higher.
Depends who you are talking to.
'vibrations'. Shit that was a 30's way of talking. All you can say is that you
can adjust things, and other things change. It feels like there is a different
you inside the normal one. But that is just a feeling. None of it is any more
real thatn the world you think you live in. Its just re-arranging the feelimngs
of the world and the sense of the world into a different framework.
I am not sure it is helpful to talk about 'astral planes' anyway.
All you get is shit from thise who don't know what you are referring to, and
detailed argument from those who think they do.
Just go on and use it.
>
> D
Tim
> If we can tune our self into a higher or lower rate of vibrations then
> we will see things that belong in those wavelengths as you say.
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what procedure would I have to follow in order
> to tune into these wavelengths?
Isn't this just the issue. Sure many can accept esoteric concepts and still
others evolve their own theories and ideas but this nothing but debate
unless it is moved into practice.. it certainly is an effort of practice
and not something one can just do. I am no master but in all decent
spiritual practices there is an aspect of silencing the mind called
meditation, yoga, tai chi, prayer etc and it is interruptions from thoughts
which interfere with awareness and not that the awareness can be sought
after.
In terms of the specifics of astral travel i personally cannot help because
i have chosen to follow a way that leads directly beyond the first four
illusionary dimensions and so i ignore their interruption during practice
but prehaps this site will make the bodies and dimensions clearer...
http://oz.sannyas.net/quotes/chakra01.htm
I would also suggest finding a decent master to guide you for a while as
well because if you try this alone you may spend the rest of your life
looking to travel in the astral plane and when you finally get there find
that it's just the emotional world and can't tell you anything you can't
'read' by just looking around you once your vibration is right.
Enjoy,
Tim
--
DynamiK 1
The incredible Sulk <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
news:397E8562...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
But I cannot neglect that frequency of vibrations play a large role in the
medium that we reside in...regardless of how old the theory is.
D
David Bos
The incredible Sulk wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > A mechanism for how it is that an astral plane brings together certain
> > disparate phenomena with common features, other than being just a word
> > (two words).
>
> Well tell me how 'the ocean' brings together 'water' and 'waves' and 'sand' and I will
> tell you...
>
> Seems to me its just a way of grouping those elements together in a way that seems to
> be useful.
Based on what we know those elements to be. We take for granted what
those elements are because they are pretty much part of every day
experience. But that doesn't mean that it isn't important what those
elements are. "Astral plane" and (assumed) associated phenomena are not
part of every day experience: there is nothing to be taken for granted,
nothing self explaining.
Moreover, in the case of ocean and water there -is- a mechanism: ocean >
evaporation > condensation > rain > river > ocean. There's even a
mechanism for sand: part erosion, part leftover from coral eating fish.
> The only mechanism that is at work is ones own pattern recognition software...
In observing it yes. I mean the mechanism that makes the astal plane
come about, or the way in which the astral plane explains certain
phenomena.
The reason why i asked about a mechanism in the first place is because
earlier in this thread someone said "astral plane" is a model. I assumed
"model" was intended in the scientific sense of the word, which is all
about mechanism (eg model of global climate: a mechanism of how the
climate works, what it is that makes it behave the way it does).
> >
> > Eg what are these common features (other than we not being able to
> > explain them scientificaly). Or how it is that the existance of an
> > astral plane explains these phenomena.
> >
>
> You don't need quantum physics to explain how a bow and arrow works.
You need it to explain how the electronics in your computer work.
Moreover: the electronics in you computer work because we know stuff
like quantum mechanics.
It is not like quantum mechanics is entirely abstract, out if this world
and practicaly useless.
> [snip]
> >
> > > > So far "astral plane" is not much more than two words. We have a "what"
> > > > but no "how".
> > > >
>
> How does the ocean?
see above
> I can't answer that either?
> How does gravity? It just does.
Even though we don't know all about gravity there is to know, at least
it is quantifiable. And the 'model' of gravity does explain how it is
that things do fall (inverse square of distance etc.). We can measure it
and calculate it. We can work with what we know about gravity: build
bridges, launch rockets into space.
> How does Time? Space? They are concepts - yardsticks - things to group and refer to
> other things with, for purposes of gaining some handle on their behaviours.
Time and space can be measured, we know their behaviour, we have
descriptions, it ties in with all the rest of physics.
As far as i can tell "astral plane" is not quantifiable, can not be
measured, no properties are known, does not explain anything. It may be
usefull to some but it is nothing but a term for a collection of
unexplained phenomena, the phenomena remain unexplained with the
introduction of the term astral plane. All it says is that it is assumed
that these phenomena are somehow related, but not -how- they are
related.
david
David Bos
The incredible Sulk wrote:
>
> Dissident wrote:
>
> > I still think that you should answer the man.
>
> I have done. But he is asking unsanswerable questions.
you tried, for sure.
> > He has treated you with
> > courtesy and a spirit of genuine enquiry. His request is reasonable.
>
> No, in fact it isn't. You can't explain a mechansim for a concept. You use
> concepts to build mechanisms. Not the other way around.
-If- a concept is supposed to explain anything then a mechanism should
be part of the concept.
> > If you
> > cannot respond show some intellectual honesty and say so.
>
> I have done that. I have clearly outlined a 'concept'. I still do not see how a
> concept has a mechanism. Concepts are a priori with respect to mechanisms.
>
> > There is no shame
> > in admitting that your statements are based on instinct or wishful thinking
> > or whatever
>
> Well they aren't. They are based on personal experience.
>
> > . There should be great shame in intellectual dishonesty.
>
> Indeed. So stop asking the unanswerable, and if you can, answer my question.
>
> What is the mechanism of Time?
I'll repeat what i stated on another reply to you:
earlier in this thread someone said "astral plane" is a -model-. I
assumed scientific model, which implies a mechanism.
Time is not a model, but time can be part of a model. Then time has to
be measurable, it needs some property or properties that can be known to
us, in order for it to be usefull as part of a model.
> > > Dissident wrote:
> > >
> > > > Keep at it, David. If you sink your teeth into his trouserleg and hang
> > on
> > > > like fury you might eventually get an answer. The problem, however,
> > seems to
> > > > be that these astral plane types are usually not capable of giving a
> > direct
> > > > reply. There may be some exceptions but all the people I have ever heard
> > > > waxing lyrical about astralism are as bad as fundamentalist Bible
> > punchers
> > > > in their unwillingness to think critically about their own ideas. It's
> > sad
> > > > really.
> > >
> > > Don't get sassy. Youi are as bad as Schuler with his 'prove it'
> > >
> > > Prove that time exists. Go on. Prove it. Can't be done. Its just 'a
> > priori'
> > >
proof of existance time:
things happen (you can check this)
if there would be no time then no things could happen.
david
David Bos
The incredible Sulk wrote:
>
> David Bos wrote:
>
> > The incredible Sulk wrote:
> > >
> > > David Bos wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > You are a tad sour tonight sonny jim.
> > > > > Perhaps if I said that the astral plane is the area where Kant's transcendental
> > > > > aesthetic operates to produce the categories, you might be more recpetive?
> > > >
> > > > Just a different name for the same thing: still no explanation.
> > >
> > > How do you turn experience into a worldview?
> >
> > Experience tells you something about 'how the world works' and hence
> > what to expect from the world, or how to look at the world. That's your
> > worldview right there.
>
> Ah. And where does this experience come from?
well ehm. observation, sensory input. correlation with previous
experiences.
> And is it ordered or just random noise?
ordered to the extend that i usualy can make sense of it.
> And it what ways is it ordered?
in the way that given the same circumstances, the same things happen.
> > > I am sorry - I haven't go time to go into this in boring detail. If you are curious,
> > > join me in alt.magick, where I tend to say more...
> >
> > i wouldn't want to bore you.
> > besides i am more into philosophy than into any form of magic.
> >
>
> Is there a difference?
yes there is.
david
Von
In Yoga it is taught not to get hung up on things like the astral plane or
you will get sidetracked.
This is why many people on the path doing concentration and meditation can
also do called miracles, but they won't because they don't want to get
sidetracked form their main goal.
Von
Tim <t...@maddoc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:397E8F73...@maddoc.co.uk...
Von
It' very hard to talk about other dimensions with words when words are not
even used as a means of communication. It's done by intuition so it's
almost impossible to talk intelligently when our little minds can't really
see beyond it's nose.
If people know then they know and you can never convince anyone unless they
have been there. Most belief systems that really know always say, don't
talk.:) I talk anyway, but I don't expect to win. It's just conversation
until people know from direct experience and then at that time they will
never be able to explain it themselves. It's the nature of the game.
Von
DynamiK 1 <Dyna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E_wf5.19188$c5.5...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> The incredible Sulk <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:397E8562...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > DynamiK 1 wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I agree, that location is not the issue!
> > > I think the question is more of "At what frequency is the astral
plane?"
> >
> > I would have to say bollocks.
> >
> > The experience of the 'astral plane' is a priori to that of space time.
> >
> > It is of awareness of the space where concepts like space and time seem
> like
> > choices to ne taken up or not.
> >
> > Where is the software on your computer? On a CD-ROM? In the memory? On
the
> disk?
> > On the screen?
> > None of these and all of these.
> >
> > Mostly its in the minds of those who wrote it, wherever that is...
> >
> > We have concepts that are independent of space-time. Why get hung up in
> this
DynamiK 1
we are not going to get closer to our global spiritual awareness unless some
of us start providing others with information beyond their own
capabilities....We need to shout out our wisdom, if people aren't listening,
shout in a different direction, it doesn't mean we should let the poor souls
find out the hard way....We shouldn't be proud of our knowledge, but rather
privileged, well I think anyway:):)
D
Von <V4...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:IuEf5.9324$RG6.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Thomas Becker
Thomas Becker
http://space.tin.it/clubnet/thbecker/
"DynamiK 1" <Dyna...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:6Ybg5.20275$c5.5...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...