Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 04:01 PM

So if a lunatic does something he thinks is good and right, then it *is* good and right in some sense that sane people have to respect even as they are revolted and outraged?

If Hitler thought the Holocaust was a good idea, in any sense of the word "good," what does that prove about anything except that he was out of his mind?

Surely I'm missing something.

Is it that deep down Hitler only wanted to do the right thing? Unless you're God weighing his soul, what difference would that make? OK, maybe the difference between capital punishment and life imprisonment - but only if you think life in prison would have been an adequate sentence.

IRONY WARNING. THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE CONTAINS IRONY. DO NOT TAKE PERSONALLY.

Oh! Oh! Wait! Maybe the Nazis were sane and everybody else is nuts! I didn't think of that! We really never can tell, can we? Who's to judge? (After all, "History is written by the lying victors.")

END OF IRONIC PART OF THIS MESSAGE.

I guess I just don't understand.

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 03:10 PM

What the Nazis were doing (in general) was "good" as far as Hitler and Goebbels and many of their loyal supporters were concerned

It was not. His initial improvement of the economy and morale, perhaps. None of his military adventures, his racist diatribes or his genocidal insanities were good for him or anyone connected with him. If they were believed to be "good" it was for the shallowest, most specious, and most indefensible rationalization.

A

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 10:13 PM

I don't absolutely know that Hitler was deluded, Ringer...but I very strongly suspect that he was. That is what the historical record seems to suggest. Only his most loyal and unswerving supporters would disagree that he was deluded, and I'm definitely not one of them.

Actions can be disastrous when they result in various forms of destruction, loss, and failure that were totally unexpected by he who iniated the actions. That was certainly the case with Hitler's attempts at building a new German empire in the 30s and 40s. ("Reich" means "realm" or "empire") The effort failed utterly, resulted in a partitioned and devastated Germany, the rise of 2 superpowers (Russia and the USA), and the creation of a Zionist state in Israel which is now one of the most effective military powers in the world, AND a member of the exclusive little community of nuclear-armed powers. For Hitler and the Germans this was a disaster. For the Jews is was a disaster. For most of Europe it was a disaster. It pretty much bankrupted the UK. Only the Russians and Americans came out of it with much reason to be pleased by the results of that conflict.

What I meant by "all is sacred" was this: All is sacred in its original or intrinsic nature, prior to the use of free will. The moment you have the use of free will, then relativity arises...all forms of conscious separation arise....and judgements of good and evil arise in the mind of the observer(s).

With free will we have...

you and me
us and them
here and there
"good" and "bad"

And we all know perfectly well what those are..."good" (for us) is what we feel positively toward and "bad" is what we feel negatively toward. Whether someone else agrees with us on those labels in any specific case is totally up to them and is dependent on their use of free will.

What the Nazis were doing (in general) was "good" as far as Hitler and Goebbels and many of their loyal supporters were concerned. It was "bad" as far as a far greater number of people in the world were concerned. These kind of disputes about good and evil have been going on all through history, and they are judged by those who live through them and survive them.

People generally judge something according to how they've been taught to judge it by their culture, their parents, their leaders, their churches, their teachers, their peer group.....they tend to let someone else set up their set of moral values for them, and then they repeat what they were told.

This made it pretty easy for Hitler to get some Germans to arrest and kill Jews (and many other people), and it's made it pretty easy for the American public to passively give consent to a series of wars of choice in the Middle East. A war of choice is not a war where somone attacked you. It's a war where YOU decided to attack someone else first, and you justified it in your own mind. That's exactly what Hitler did in the case of Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Russia. (It doesn't apply to his fight with England or France, however, because they declared war on him first, as a result of the Polish invasion.)

Most people are conformists by nature. They tend to believe and follow whatever their society teaches them to believe and follow, and it is on that basis that they decide what is "good" and what is "evil". There are some things (such as rape, murder, theft, fraud, arson, lying, cheating) that almost all societies label as "evil"....so most of us are agreed when it comes to how we see those things. We don't find it nearly so easy to agree on most political issues...

Consider a society that believed that animals have souls, and that they have the same right to life as human beings. In such a society it might well be considered "evil" to kill animals and eat them. And if you'd been born into that society, you would see it as evil...unless you were a real nonconformist and determined to challenge that idea.

To understand a nation, you must first understand what they think is "good" and what they think is "evil". Get that figured out, and you are on the way to at least understanding them, even if you don't agree with them.

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 08:18 PM

Thanks for moving this below, Mudelf!

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 06:13 PM

I found this old thread by accident (if there is such a thing) and found it very interestng.

All these many years later, I have a working hypothesis for how a Hitler and a Mother Theresa are equal.

I believe that each of us enters this world with an understanding, a commitment, a contract, if you will and that is to undertake the life we are assigned or have volunteered for and either overcome a previous "bad" experience, or given a frame in which to work, to make it as good as possible. We start out as spirit- and no spirit is inherently superior to any other.

We succeed or fail. Therefore Hitler and Mother Theres respectively failed and succeeded. If my hypothesis is correct, at least one of them will be back...

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Ringer
Date: 27 Sep 00 - 06:07 AM

OK, Little Hawk, here's my reply to your post above.

You say (para 2) All is sacred and all is good, but also talk about comparing good and evil (para 3). I'm sure I don't have to point out the inconsistency there.

And you say (para 4) Hitler... was deluded. How do you know it was he who was deluded and not you? Only because his actions were disastrous. But how can actions be disastrous or exemplary if All is sacred and all is good?

It seems to me that you have two axioms which are mutually contradictory: Firstly that all is sacred, etc, but secondly you bring to the party a separate concept of good and bad which you proceed to mix into the first to give you a standard to judge actions by. It may well be that I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick, or perhaps you have a wider philosophy which encompasses and reconciles the two points of view that I think I perceive. But at the moment, it looks a muddle to me, I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Helen
Date: 26 Sep 00 - 06:23 PM

'Spaw,

I think this scientifically (grin) proves that most 'Catters are contrary. Start a serious thread and we will turn it into BS, start a BS thread and we will turn it into seriousness (seriosity?). Just makes life more interesting, IMHO.

Helen

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Ringer
Date: 26 Sep 00 - 12:52 PM

Just caught this before leaving. No time to reply now. Don't think it does answer my question, though, LH

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Escamillo
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 10:28 PM

oh, please don't mention the word "Incarnation", it's a temptation too strong for Spaw and myself, to convert this serious discussion back into an unbeleivable nonsense !! :)))))))))))))))))))

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 08:57 PM

Spaw,

As above, so below -- the fraction of BS:sanity is similar in this thread to the real mix. Thanks for sharing!!!!

love ya,

Amos

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 08:50 PM

And this is the Second Incarnation of it, Spaw, if one believes in coming round, again, as I do.**BG**

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 08:12 PM

Simply amazing..............

We have a high percentage of discussion topic threads that dissolve into complete and utter nonsense, but this one takes a new turn. If you recall, this thread started as a request through Carol for Andres for some complete and utter nonsense....."What would Cletus have to say about auras?" It has gone through a complete metamorphosis into a discussion topic thread. I don't recall this happening too often in the past.

This is not to say that it is any less laden with total bullshit than the original idea, its just a more esoteric form.

Simply amazing.......

Spaw

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Escamillo
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 03:28 PM

Doug, I missed the part when they mentioned how they had found the exact date and time. I guess they found it as magically as they explained the stars influence.

Amos. I'll reply later. (heeeww! no easy job)

Un abrazo - Andrés

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 02:51 PM

Escamillo, amigo viejo:

If spiritual phenomena exist, they are within the real of science in its highest and best definition. But to work toward a scientific address to it, it would be very important to first differentiate between science as a rationale and science as a method for sorting out the physical universe. It is easy to collapse these two things, since 99+% of our acknowledged science is focused on the latter. But they are different.
The critical difference is that science within the physical, time based continuum depends for its execution on characteristics of "blind repeatability", for the most part relying on the notion that at least above a certain scale, a physical object under identical conditions of space, time and energy will repeat its behaviour. This certainly works, and is why physics is so successful as a science.
However, it is fairly clear that for this to occur, the particles or parts being tested must not participate in awareness, intention, or the ability to create. In fact we tend to assume that these parts have no ability other than blind compliance to the forces of gravity, pressure, mass, time and so on.
If I were a psychic, and someone wanted me to pose as such a mindless element in order to satisfy an arcane ritualistic process for the benefit of academics, I would probably shut down every wavelength outside of straight physical/acoustic/optic/sensory in a split instant.
Trying to test psychic abilities on such terms would be like the old joke of concluding that when you cut off all a frog's legs and tell him to jump, and he jumps not, the reason is he has suddenly gone deaf.

THere is strong anecdotal evidence that the abilities associated with awareness are not even constrained by the unidirectional arrow of time of which we are all so fond -- now there's a real first-class addiction for you!
So the question isn't how do you make awareness and ability act like matter in order to have it answer up to science. The question is rather, how do you design a scientific methodology or way of knowing that can include aware, creating, deciding, perceiving and intending subjects without killing the experiment through suffocation

Warmest regards,

Amos

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: DougR
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 02:28 PM

First time I have ever heard that the exact date and time of the birth of Jesus have ever been identified. Did they give their refrences for such a prouncement, Escamillo?

DougR

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 02:15 PM

"Instinct" is a word that the scientific mind concocted to describe behaviour that they can find no specific explanation for. Instinct is divine intelligence. It is divine intelligence that also produces great works of art, and scientific breakthroughs by great minds, and that enabled that goose to alert the town about the bombings.

Bald Eagle - good question. All is sacred and all is good, but that doesn't mean that all is desirable from any specific individual's point of view. To be burned is not desirable, but in an experiential sense it is very useful, because from it you gain knowledge and will know how to avoid getting burned again...so in that sense it is good! That's the paradox of reality.

We cannot understand "good" at all, until we have a chance to compare it to "evil" in a relative world. We cannot understand honesty until we have witnessed and experienced dishonesty. The killer or thief is not morally upright in the normal sense of morality, but his actions serve as an enlightening catalyst to the entire human community around him.

Hitler, in a conscious sense, was deluded, and thought that he was defending various of his own people against various evil-doers (as he saw it). His actions were very reprehensible to the majority of humanity, while heroic in the eyes of his followers. So it has ever been. I have known a few elderly Germans who still consider Hitler to have been a fine and idealistic man who was betrayed by unscrupulous lieutenants (such as Himmler and Goering, etc.). People are capable of believing anything.

I do not judge the person, but the person's actions. Hitler's actions were disastrous, misguided, and horrific. Mother Teresa's actions were exemplary. I will always try to avoid dangerous individuals, and I will support efforts to stop them from hurting people, but I will not judge their essential worth as human souls.

We learn from both the good and the evil that is around us. We learn to pursue the good, to be inspired by it, to follow in its path. We learn to abhore the evil, to learn from it, to turn away from it toward the good.

Jesus was able to forgive even those who crucified him, because he knew that all beings are of one spirit, and that Spirit has no blemish. Those who crucified him did not know this. And they knew not what they were doing.

Everyone is morally distinguishable from everyone else, so we need to observe people carefully, and judge their actions accordingly...and, if necessary, oppose them...even sometimes, to the death, I am sad to say. Each one of us must decide on our own. There is a time for all things.

I hope this is a clear answer to your question.

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Ringer
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 01:38 PM

If all is sacred and all is god, Little Hawk, isn't the implication that a Hitler is morally indistinguishable from a St Francis, or Mother Theresa from a whore's pimp, as they're all little parts of god? So when you talk of "higher ideals", how do you judge height?

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 05:41 AM

Andres. I have met two people who have been both accurate and detailed enough to be worthy of study. One, the wife of a friend, uses coffee grounds as a medium. She started doing it when she was a child in Greece. The other, a co-worker on a ship, studied astrology as a hobby and was remarkably accurate. Neither used their gift/skill as a means to raise money. The Greek lady positively hated to do it (except for friends and family, her husband cajoled her into reading mine) Like me she considered it a curse, because on three occasions she accurately predicted the death of younger relatives. No Andres I do not advocate that they can be used for commercial purposes.

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Escamillo
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 04:19 AM

Ebbie and Dave, thanks for your valuable contribution.If you agree that those phenomena can't be produced on demand, are of an unpredictable nature, and thus can't be analyzed by science, would you agree that they can be used for commercial advisory services ? as a base for opening a clinic ? I guess not. Thus we would have a point in common, aside from the value we give to spiritual and emotional things, as already said.

Regarding astrology: it is considered an art or tradition among its sustainers, rather than a science (they already learnt that they can't discuss this in a minimal base). It is very different of EPS phenomena because they clearly state that their results are repetitive and precise, and will be happy to "work" on a set of personal data to lay out your birth chart for a fee. No, don't ask the same service to two of them, because their results will be different, and you will be involved in an endless discussion and mutual accusations of charlatanism (and will pay twice).

Last night I saw on TV (Infinite Channel) a detailed analysis of the birth chart of .. Jesus of Nazareth! (somehow they know the exact date and time of birth ). They said that his "tendency" to be a king was given by the aligned position of the Sun with the star Aldebaran and other star (don't remember the name) which, "as every specialist knows" are ROYAL STARS. (?) Each planet and star (as long as they are discovered by the hard work and sweat of real astronomers) are assigned a certain (magical) MEANING, that is the root of their assumptions, and not the influence of the celestial masses or their light. Since that meaning was assigned by themselves, who can hold a minimal base of discussion? . And this magical assumptions are common to all astrologers, not only to those appearing on TV. The study of EPS on honest subjects could some day open new horizons to human knowledge, while astrology is a game, though many people may find it fascinating, as many games are, indeed.

By the way, we need a song dedicated to hard-working scientists, to become as famous as "Acuarius" :)

Un abrazo - Andrés

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 02:22 AM

Ebbie is right. ESP cannot be controlled on demand. There have been some people (as a matter of historical record) who could produce some amazing information on demand. Most forms of ESP however, are not repeatable events; therefore they cannot be scientifically examined. My own experience with such matters is an example. (but I do not wish to debate, or give any more details about) I do not get exact usable information in a timely manner. It can be days, weeks or years before the event. I become very ill, and can be very disturbed (sometimes for days) because of it. Many times I have been wrong about the identity of the person or persons involved, and can never influence the outcome directly; other than by personal preparation if personally involved. The event occurs even if I try to prevent or warn. My wife has seen at first hand how ill it can make me, and knows why I call it a curse. Sometimes this can be very disturbing for everyone involved and I tend to shut up and say nothing because of this. I will very often clam up, and leave a place, because of the effect it has on me. (BTW those of you who know my profession. there are no recorded incidents where an individual with psychic abilities or ESP has helped resolve an incident. We are still told to record any psychic reports sent in)

Horses have the lowest IQ of any domestic animal. They are extremely "thickheaded" and will eat themselves to death if left alone with the feed box open. The vast majority of cases where horses/animals have helped people, can be explained by instinct rather than special ability. However, they are capable of jealousy and love just like any other animal; and in certain circumstances we see exceptions to the rule. Please, all of you, be open minded about such matters as astrology and ESP. It may be that we have not perfected our science to describe paranormal phenomena accurately, therefore all the more reason to continue to study it. Perhaps, (like psychology) it is a science in its infancy. As I said in a previous post, "we may yet invent the words to describe it one day" Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 01:04 AM

Ebbie, I agree, esp. with your last couple of lines.

However, where have you heard that horses were the dumbest? I had always heard the opposite, that they were smarter than the others. I have a wonderful book of stories about uncanny animals and their feats. One told of a horse who spelled out answers to questions using a specially designed typewriter for that purpose.

Another told of a town in, I think it was Germany, which had a goose which always warned the townspeople before the bombings would come during WWII, thus saving most everyone, except one time, when they missed getting the goose to safety and it perished. There are many stories of animals sensing weather long before people know what is coming.

I have always found the horses we've had and those my dad grew up with to be of high intelligence. You can read about one of them in my Thought for the day thread, for today.

Thanks for your well written, even handed posting.

kat

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Sep 00 - 12:51 AM

Way back there, my post on 'What I Don't Believe' was meant to be facetious. Where it went wrong so that it wasn't understood that way is that I was serious in part of it. Sorry.

One factor that has not been mentioned is that which could be called involvement. Subjects who are sitting there trying to influence cards or intuiting far away scenes or whatever other means are being used to test for extra sensory results are probably on a mostly fruitless expedition. ESP flashes tend to be in response to real situations.

The scientific approach may not factor in all elements. For instance, there have been many studies on the relative intelligence of animals, i.e., pigs are smarter than dogs, cats smarter yet, horses are the dumbest, etc. Well,I happen to know better in the case of some animals and I believe we just don't yet know the correct format for testing them. My father was a horse trainer, and my family have all raised and trained horses, so there have been hundreds of horses in my life. In my own experience, there have been at least two horses that were what I call 'human-oriented'. We have lots of stories about them. The same thing is true of a number of dogs I've known. I'm sure we all have known animals whose minds worked in an unexplainable (unexplained, perhaps?) way. It is my belief that the reason that science has been able to develop this comforting chart is because it has never yet discovered that some animals are too smart to 'perform' unless there is attachment or a perceived reason for performance. (And as they say, as soon as there is one anomaly in your hypothesis, your whole argument is flawed. If you say all human beings over the age of 14 are brown-eyed and then you meet an indisputably gray-eyed one, what do you do? You either throw out your study or you start over, incorporating the new information.)In my long-winded kind of way I'm trying to say that extra sensory abilities and events may not even be successfully test-able, that a cold-blooded format is flawed from the beginning.

I admire the cool way that arguments can be made for the impossibility of what some of us claim to have experienced, and I appreciate the mostly patient way you skeptics have approached it. If I didn't know better I would be pleased to sign on with you. But when you say that an event that we have accepted is not possible in the way that we accept it-that there always is an explainable cause for the perceived effect, whether it is hallucinatory, naive, or an as yet unknown physical law- has no bearing on the fact that it did happen. I will gladly grant that probably all things are finally explainable- I believe that there are universal laws that science has not even begun to address. Arrogance, in the meantime, is unseemly. IMO.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: GUEST,John D
Date: 24 Sep 00 - 11:51 PM

FAARRRRRRRRR OUT!

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 00 - 11:29 PM

Reason, in the last analysis, must be seen as a spiritual power, or it will not be seen. It is the most powerful manifestation of the human spirit examining a domain which contains no part of it and which cannot portray it -- the domain of matter, space, and time. The ultimate mission of reason is to penetrate the fraudulent facade of apparent matter and reveal the not-yet-known which underlies it.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Sep 00 - 11:12 PM

Beautiful, Andres. Thank you, darlin'....luvyakat

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Escamillo
Date: 24 Sep 00 - 11:02 PM

Beautiful, that's what it sounds to me too, because I see no incompatibilities among science, beauty, love , spiritualism and faith*. Why should they be incompatible ?

When a sceptic complains about the raise of a new age of obscurantism, occult arts, magic, fallacy, money-making with the supposed paranormal powers, misguiding of the young people, it does not mean, in any sense, that he/she does not appreciate, enjoy and contribute to the spiritual enrichment of us all. I don't study Elgar's music with a microscope, I study it with my heart, to be able to sing it to you, to the world, to myself, for the glory of a God in which I don't beleive as an old hairy man sitting in a throne, but as something inside all of us, that expresses in a tear when listening to that music and that biblical words.

At the risk of repeating too much, I would say that we analytical/reasoning beasts are no more and no less than the rest of the creatures of this world, our lives DO have a meaning, we are here to DO something for the others, and will be remembered when we die, for the work in favor of humankind that we were able to do. What we don't like is pseudo things, be it pseudo-science or pseudo-art, pseudo-humanism, pseudo-professionalism, and especially pseudo-beer.

Do you see our point? (not the last one, of course) :)

Un abrazo - Andrés

* Faith comes in different degrees. We can agree about the importance of the Ten Commandments as a basis for human happiness, but we will not agree on the age of the Earth. As long as beleivers allow us to investigate, our disagreement is not so important after all.

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 00 - 10:46 PM

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Helen
Date: 24 Sep 00 - 08:52 PM

Beautifully stated, Little Hawk. Brought a smile to my face and a glow to my heart.

Helen

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Sep 00 - 12:09 AM

Little John - good one. I've heard about that incident at Edwards Air Force Base as well. Having seen my own extraterrestrial vehicles, I was not surprised. Jimmy Carter also saw some when he was a state governor, and he spoke to the press extensively about it. He had no doubt that they were extraterrestrial vehicles. After he became president, however, I heard nothing more about the matter. Perhaps those who really hold the power told him to keep his big mouth shut...or maybe he just was too busy with other considerations.

Amos - your comments are marvelous. You ought to write a book on the subject.

General comment on this thread - great stuff! I've not looked at it for some time till tonight. Good contributions by both sides (sceptics and believers, scientists and mystics). And best of all, those who can walk comfortably in both camps.

I think there will always be a debate in any society between those who think man DOES live "by bread alone", and those who think there's more to it than that. Up to at least age 18 I believed nothing but science and rational/logical thinking. Now I believe any number of things that are quite beyond the reach of science (because they are not things confined within the phenomena that we refer to as matter and energy...but rather they are causal things which have produced and brought forth those phenomena of matter and energy (and time) and made them observable...and the causal things continue at all times to support those observable phenomena).

Some people call what I am referring to "God". Others call it the Tao. Others call it the Great Mystery. Others call it destiny or fate or karma.

The guy who thinks man lives by bread alone (I speak metaphorically) does not believe in any of that causal stuff, and he actually tends to feel that the way things are now has occured through a series of accidental happenings, within the workings of natural law, physics, natural selection and so on.

Whereas I feel that the natural laws are themselves part of a structure that was built from the start by a purposeful form of divine intelligence, as is everything.

So, you either believe it's an accident...in which case you are an accident, and everything you do doesn't really matter in the end, because after you die you are gone, gone, gone...

Or...you believe that nothing is an accident...in which case your life has a very important and unique purpose...and everything you do DOES MATTER, and that after you die you are still very much alive (which is what I believe).

Now, I ask you, which of these attitudes leads to a healthier basic psychology? Which of them would tend to ennoble the person, and make the person reach toward higher ideals? Which of them would ennoble others in that person's eyes, and make him "his brother's keeper", instead of someone who simply seeks momentary self-gratification.

The Communists were always very enamoured of the notion that "man lives by bread alone". They were arch-materialists. And that led directly to many of the abuses they inflicted on humanity.

Capitalists, when they go to extremes, are also arch-materialists, consumed by the endless search for more money and more temporal power.

Both Communists and capitalists are happy to use the machinery of science to support their viewpoints....and they both tend to be uncomfortable with spiritual teachings which are non-competitive, which emphasize love and higher ideals. Those ideals get in the way of profits, control, and military supremacy.

Now, I will readily agree that religion has perpetrated equally hideous travesties upon humanity. Even more hideous travesties. Absolutely!!!

However, it is not religion that I am espousing here. I'm not religious, I'm spiritual.

I do not believe that God is a humanlike creature of immense power who sits on a throne judging people and deciding which ones go to heaven and which to hell. That's fundamentalist religion.

So when I counter (or add to, I might better say) the scientific viewpoint with spiritual arguments, don't imagine that I am a religionist!

My idea of "God" (or whatever you choose to call it) is...God is everything...all matter, all energy, all awareness, all being, all seen, all unseen, all potential, all time, all beyond time, all fact, all fiction (which is creative imagination, and is valuable as such), ALL. And it's ALL intelligent and has a clear and definite purpose.

Science is simply a partial way of observing and explaining how the ALL works in the presently observable realms of matter, energy and time. Those realms arose out of something even larger, and ALL of it is "God".

Which means, Wolfgang, that you too are god, although, you're just one little piece of God, one particular aspect of the whole that is God, so to speak...same as me, Spaw, or anyone else, including that fly that just buzzed past your head or the floor you are standing on. Which follows...it is ALL sacred, and we might better recogize that and behave accordingly, like the gods we are meant to be, instead of running around like terrified little death-haunted idiots pursuing limitless amounts of money, fame, military supremacy, and other empty notions of that sort...while we wait for the "grim reaper" to end the game, and sweep it all away. So pass the worlds of illusion.

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: little john cameron
Date: 23 Sep 00 - 08:59 PM

Me again.Ah just found this.
http://www.anomalous-images.com/astroufo

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: little john cameron
Date: 23 Sep 00 - 08:54 PM

Oops ah forgot.
About the Author:

Richard J. Boylan, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist with a counselling practice in Sacramento, California, USA. Dr Boylan has been a student of the UFO phenomenon since 1947, but in 1989 he began to interview persons reporting extraterrestrial contact experiences. In late 1991 he commenced an ongoing research investigation into ET encounters with humans. He has written two books, Extraterrestrial Contact and Human Responses (1992) and Close Extraterrestrial Encounters: Positive Experiences with Mysterious Visitors (Wild Flower Press, 1994), and has had many articles published. Dr Boylan is a founding director of the Academy of Clinical Close Encounter Therapists (ACCET), and has conducted numerous workshops for mental health professionals dealing with specialised counselling for experiencers of ET contact. ljc

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: little john cameron
Date: 23 Sep 00 - 08:50 PM

Ah don't know if ah'm buttin in here but ah jist came across this.
ASTRONAUT GORDON COOPER SPEAKS OUT In April 1995 at an Arkansas conference, astronaut Gordon Cooper declared that when he was a USAF officer, a four-man Air Force crew was filming a plane landing-gear test at Edwards Air Force Base in 1957 when a UFO swooped down and landed at the base while the Air Force cameras were rolling. The shocked USAF camera crew later brought the film to Edwards AFB Headquarters. Gordon Cooper personally viewed the film. EAFB commanding officers thereafter shipped it to Washington. Nothing has been heard of since about the film.

Astronaut Cooper is expected to make this revelation in a television documentary to be broadcast imminently. He has been cooperating with Irish film producer Jackie Dunn who is working with a Canadian film production company on this major UFO documentary film.

Cooper, also a former Air Force Colonel, granted a second interview to Sam Sherman, of Independent-International Pictures Corporation, who is producing a film, titled Beyond This Earth, to be released in early 1996. In it, Cooper says that he "had worked on a UFO system with someone who had been in touch with extraterrestrials and was able to gain some knowledge." This person had made a small UFO prototype, and was working on a 50-foot model, with financial backing from an Arab country, when he died. Cooper also talked about the Center for Advanced Technology which no longer exists. They were apparently involved in back-engineering some kind of alien technology. Cooper also talked about a friend who saw the ET bodies at Roswell.
Does anyone know antmore about this? LJC

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Sep 00 - 07:32 AM

Actually, Wolfgang, I would appreciate it very much if you would communicate that information to Helen in a personal message, rather than in the forum.

Thank you very much for asking.

Carol

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Sep 00 - 06:34 AM

Here's the full scientific article, in many parts readable even for a nonchemist.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Sep 00 - 06:15 AM

Back to the theme of the thread:

Early this week, there was the day of St. Januarius, one of the days in the year when the blood wonder in Naples happens. First look at the description from the Catholic Saints Homepage:

St. Januarius Feastday: September 19

St. Januarius was born in Italy and was bishop of Benevento during the Emperor Diocletion persecution. Bishop Januarius went to visit two deacons and two laymen in prison. He was then also imprison along with his deacon and lector. They were thrown to the wild beasts, but when the animals did not attack them, they were beheaded. What is believed to be Januarius' blood is kept in Naples, as a relic. It liquifies and bubbles when exposed in the cathedral. Scientists have not been able to explain this miracle to date. St. Januarius lived and died around 305 A.D. and his feast day is September 19th.

I remember reading when Napoleon conquered Italy the blood refused to liquify, considered a bad omen. Napoleon who knew about the power of (bad) propaganda and obviously believed that the miracle could be produced on demand told those in charge of the miracle that he expected it to happen pronto or else... It happened prontissimo.

But I'm telling this here for another reason. Look at the before last sentence in the account. Sentences similar to this appear nearly always in such accounts and are nearly always wrong. Since centuries there have been many scientific attempts to replicate this phenomenon with more or less success (one idea: the warmth of the hands of the handlers when the phial is turned several times liquifies the fluid which has a low melting point; problem of this idea: there seems to be no correlation of the miracle with room temperature). Here's a better explanation, the best candidate today:

Prof. Garlaschelli thinks that the substance is thixotropic (lowering its melting point considerably after handling and getting solid again when left alone) and has produced a red bloodlike substance which is more or less identical in properties to to substance in Naples. (you want to do the miracle yourself? click) We cannot know for sure what's true until the church agrees to scientific analysis of the substance in the phial like it has agreed in other cases, but one thing is sure: That there is no scientific explanation is simply wrong. The present scientific best guess might turn out to be wrong later, but a possible explanation it is.

Whenever you read the sentence 'there is no scientific explanation' your best guees should be that this is simply wrong.

Wolfgang

P.S.: Carol, would you like me to respond to Helen's question to me here or in a PM to her? (might take some time, for I'll be off for nearly a week)

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: DougR
Date: 21 Sep 00 - 07:46 PM

Helen: I've only been around for about a year and a half, so you have me on longivity. I believe that the comments I made earlier were in line with what seems, at least to me, to be acceptable here at the Mudcat.

Anyone who is not aware that anything they post here, however, can freely be quoted, written or talked about by others, etc. is just not viewing the forum realistically, again in my opinion. There is no way to police it, and no way to copywright or protect ones postings.

DougR

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 00 - 06:04 PM

Wolfgang,

You have stated your position reasonably.

You asked, "And now it all boils down to the question, what is the type of information Carol has given on dissolving clouds".

According to the assumptions you have made about my activities here in the Mudcat, my post falls into the category of "information".

This is where we differ. My activities on the Mudcat actually fall into the category of "play", not information. Sometimes information can be conveyed while I am playing, but that is not my main purpose in being here. I am here to play with my friends.

That is why using my posts feels like a violation to me. You are taking something I am doing as a part of my playfull activities and trying to apply it to something serious and scientific. I just doesn't fit, and it doesn't feel good when people use my play in that way.

Do you understand play? Do you play yourself? Do you want your play to be taken out of context and taken apart for its applicability to something that is of quite a different nature? When you do this to me, or at least when you tell me about it, it takes a lot of the joy out of my play. As I said before, if you are going to do this sort of thing, it would be better if you did not tell me about it. If I don't know about it, it can't effect my fun.

Carol

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: GUEST,Helen (using IE)
Date: 21 Sep 00 - 05:35 PM

Alice,

It was Wolfgang himself who stated that he is referring the scientist's code of honour in his use of information posted here.

Wolfgang,

Thank you for restating your original statement to CarolC. It clarifies your position a lot more, and takes away some of the heat of debate, in my opinion. Could you tell us what the flaw in her (quasi)experimental process is, please?

DougR,

There is no stated code of honour for Mudcat, but the accepted practices of being part of this cyber-community, and of posting to the forum have been discussed in great detail over the time that I have been coming here, which is around 3-4 years, I think, and there is some general agreement, as far as I can see, on what is and is not acceptable.

Helen

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Ringer
Date: 21 Sep 00 - 03:33 PM

I wonder why those who believe in paranormal experience and power are so worried by science's view of their activity, as exemplified by Wolfgang. All they have to do is maintain that their power (shorthand for power/experience/etc) is supernatural and science cannot then touch it. Science deals with nature and the supernatural is, by definition, outside nature.

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Alice
Date: 21 Sep 00 - 11:45 AM

Wolfgang's point of view is protected by freedom of speech. His messages have been reasonable and respectful. As DougR stated, "getting carried away" is not necessary in responding to Wolfgang. There is no need to censor him or to characterize scientists as having a different code of honor.

This weekend I am going to a conference on illustration and science. Art and science both uses processes of exploration, questioning, discovery, and problem solving. There is much to be learned from what Wolfgang has written if the defensiveness would be put aside. He is not attacking anyone, he is expressing his considerably well educated and experienced opinion.

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Sep 00 - 08:10 AM

You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and I'll be trying to correct the proportions.

Just look back to what actually has happened. We had a thread started by Carol with the stated theme to hear anyone's explanation of whatever is unexplained at this time. Well, actually, she did start it for Escamillo but I could read no disapproval of this idea in her starting post.

Well, I get a pleasure out of finding rational explanations for previously unexplained 'things', so it was a fine theme for me. Many of you , I have gathered, feel better without rational explanations, see e.g. Hesperis saying: I have experienced things that I can't explain. They probably could be explained, but where would Mystery dwell, then? If that's how you feel, fine for you, but I sometimes got the feeling that even mentioning a rational explanation of some feat, let alone pointing out details of that explanation, was seen by some of you as intrusion into your beliefs. But I don't think that my contributions were out of the theme of that thread.

Mudcat is a fine place to share ideas and information, mostly on music, but often on other topics as well. And many if not all of us have taken bits of what they have found here to somewhere else. They have retold jokes found here, used recipes posted in Mudcat outside of Mudcat, used information from another poster for their own pages on songs, for publications, papers etc. The use of information found here at other places is widespread. There are webpages out there which indicate that a certain information (on a song, e.g.) comes from such and such a poster in Mudcat. I don't think you see anything wrong with that.

Are there limits to using information in posts outside?. Sure, for me at least. I would not think it correct ever to use a very personal information outside of here. A is unhappily in love, B is happily in love with C, D is sad about having lost a close relation, or even minor details as E cries when hearing a special song, F does hate Bob Dylan are not to be used outside of this forum (if a scientist really would be interested in such things, there is always a way of occluding the individual identity, mostly done by only presenting averaged data).

But for me, it is completely different when a posters just presents information and/or opinion. If anyone of you for instance would feel like using my posts here in an esoteric journal or wherever in order to point out how close-minded sceptics are, I'd smile about it. Except if you did not give my name and where you've found the bit you cite. I insist on being cited, when my words are used. And now it all boils down to the question, what is the type of information Carol has given on dissolving clouds?

After several posts (by others) stating the cloud busting 'can be done...easier than you may think', 'over 500 successful demonstrations' have been made, Carol stated that Cloud busters are a lot more common that some people think and that everyone she has asked so far has said yes to the question whether they had ever tried dissolving clouds. She went on to say that she has taught her son how to do it and that he taught his friends in turn. That seemed and still seems to me just like sharable information, comparable to when Rick Fielding tells us about how to learn fingerpicking.

Now to the target post from Carol. If you want to read it in full and not to rely on my partial rendition, click here. Carol wrote (boldface from me):

For everyone else: If anyone wants to try dissolving clouds, it's not too hard as long as you are realistic about choosing your cloud. On a calm, sunny day with a few puffy clouds in the sky, pick a small cloud that isn't moving too fast as your target. ...
Look at the cloud, and then close your eyes and imagine the cloud dissolving slowly until it dissapears. Expect it to take a few minutes (for me, it takes about ten to fifteen minutes). Before you do this, make a mental map of the other clouds in the area, so you know that your cloud is behaving differently than the others. Otherwise you might think it's a coincidence that the cloud dissapeared. ... I won't suggest that this will work for everyone, but so far, I've never seen it fail. ...

Now what else is this than a description how to perform an experiment on cloud busting using control clouds for comparison, with the only personal information being how long it usually takes Carol to perform the act. And an experimental description is open to criticism. I happen to know that a vital detail is missing in the description that, if absent in the actual experiment, is rendering the experiment worthless as a proof for what is purports to prove. Carol's post is not shared as a personal experience (as e.g. Ebbie's post on clouds in that thread), but seems to me formulated completely as a 'to whom it may concern' type of post for everyone to share. Or how else do you read 'for everyone else' and 'if anyone wants'?

If you're honest with yourself, I think you'll admit that if e.g. kat would have written 'Carol, I'll show your post to a group of people I know who try to do cloud busting', there wouldn't have been an outcry, not even a slight admonition that this is breaking confidence. In my perception, the main reason for the outcry (except for my way of saying it here) is that I intend to make use of that post as an example how not to do an experiment.

Look here, how my post reads if I reformulate it approvingly:
Carol, I am grateful for your example how you have proved cloudbusting, for I always look for good examples from real life to make the otherwise sometimes dull lecture on how do to (quasi)experiments more interesting. My students (some of them but I hope only a few will hate me for that) will be assigned the task to spot the dependent and independent variables. And you're post will be cited in my book on experimental methods.

Do you think you would then also have written 'you have made an inappropriate comment in this forum when you said that you would use her statements as an example in your classes'? I strongly doubt it. You wouldn't have minded at all me using a post in a lecture approvingly.

You don't like my opinions and more so my way of stating them and therefore you use this opportunity to jump on me. That's all.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: DougR
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 09:56 PM

Whoa! I don't want to start a civil war in the community, but since when has there been a "code of honor" in the Mudcat? I think there has been a general feeling on the part of most members of the community that one should treat another as they would like to be treated, but a formal code of honor. Don't think so.

Many who have posted to this thread (and I have read every posting) are very emotionally involved with this subject. That's fine, but in such instances, it is awfully easy to get a bit carried away. IMO. DougR

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 09:17 PM

Well put, Helen, thank you, I was thinking along those same lines about code of honour and the Mudcat. It feels like a violation of implied mutual trust, something we've already lost enough of over the past year or so.

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Helen
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 06:42 PM

So, Wolfgang, you have been operating on a different code of honour than most of the Mudcatters. You operate on the scientists' code of honour. That is very enlightening, and thank you for sharing this information. It puts a completely new spin on this dialogue. In a sense, you have been harvesting our thoughts and feelings and insights without our knowledge but at least you have the decency to admit it openly to us, which is probably more than many of the other "harvesters" will ever do.

It has taken nearly 300 postings to the first and second parts of this thread to find this out.

The analogy which comes to me is of the Japanese code of honour in war. Their values are that to be a captive of war is dishonourable and it is more honourable to commit suicide than to submit to the enemy. As a consequence of these beliefs they are reputed to have treated their prisoners of war with less care and concern than the Christian countries believe that prisoners of war should be treated. (Note: I am saying how they "believe" they should be treated because belief does not always translate into appropriate action in all situations due to individual or collective human actions.)

If members of one culture act honourably according to their own code, but are perceived to be acting dishonourably by another group of people, who is in the right and who is in the wrong? If I were in Japan I would hope that I could act in accordance with their cultural values, in as far as it did not conflict with my own cultural and personal values in any fundamental way, but I would not commit suicide if captured by the enemy. I would follow my own cultural value of clinging to life in the face of diversity.

Is the old saying "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" appropriate here? When in Mudcat do as the Mudcatters do - or believe that we should do, i.e the generally accepted social practices. Or should we all just act according to our own codes of honour and if anyone gets burnt in the process, well, it's only a natural consequence of being part of a "public" internet forum.

Complex human questions requiring complex thought and responses. No easy answers.

Helen

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 05:46 AM

Bert,
I think I agree completely with you on the necessitiy of using the same standards of judgement. As I said in an earlier post to you, nobody expects Tarot readings to be correct all of the time, just in a well controlled scientific experiment to to be more often correct than by chance alone (in comparison to a correctly chosen control group). If any experiment in medicine (traditional or not) doesn't meet these standards then my reaction is just the same: "case not proven".
To all those that have commented upon my exchange with Carol and asked for an apology, read my post from 18-Sep-00 - 07:39 AM. I have clearly stated there for what I apologise (telling it this way) and for what not (that I'll be using her post in a book). The scientists code of honour demands that any argument is cited correctly, that private communications are not cited without permission, but publicly available documents can be cited without consent and even without asking. Mudcat Forum posts are publicly available documents.
Are you really unaware that the internet and its contents including posts are used by (mainly) social scientists as a giant new source of raw data? There are people out there dissecting the type of argumentation used, studying the social dynamics in discussion groups, counting the number of different words used in order to find out what the impact of the internet is on the language, and many more.
But this theme would merit a new thread.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: hesperis
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:20 PM

Hi, all!

Wow, this thread has been getting HOT while I was taking a break from it!
I have just read ALL of this very long thread, and have a few points:

1. Wolfgang and other "skeptics" are in this thread because they wish to discuss the unexplained. They have all (I think) said several times that they wish that parapsychology could be proven to be real. They are coming in with a point of view that is valid to them, and is not meant to be denigrating to those people who have experienced these things in other ways.

2. Those of us who have experienced unexplained things, and accepted the "spiritual" explanation(s) for those things, are getting very frustrated in trying to explain those things to the "skeptics". This has gone on for several threads, and we are getting a bit weary. I stopped reading this thread for a few days, to think and regroup. This thread is a lot of work!

3. I have experienced things that I can't explain. They probably could be explained, but where would Mystery dwell, then? (That probably makes me a "gullible" softie, but I don't mind.)

4. Ritual connects people to one another. Beliefs connect people to one another. Some people think that people are more important than facts. Some people think that people are facts, and facts are important. Do you see the difference there?

5. I think that it would have been more considerate if Wolfgang had sent a PM to Carol about her "innacuracies", and after discussing it with her, asking to use it as an example for his students, rather than announcing to all of Mudcat that he was going to do that. I find that to be rude, actually. But we all make mistakes. (And here I have singled Wolfgang out, and should have probably sent him a PM about it. (Sorry!))

Wolfgang, I have bookmarked that Skeptics site, and will peruse it at leisure.

Respectfully,
Chagall

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Helen
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 07:01 PM

Wolfgang,

Thank you for the information you have given us. I don't know why you interpreted my last statement as indicating that I was angry with you. I only asked you to give us more information on what you know about the subject, which you have now done.

I agree with Carol that you you have made an inappropriate comment in this forum when you said that you would use her statements as an example in your classes. If we all thought that other Mudcatters, whom we trust, were copying and analysing all of our statements for use in professional studies or occupations in a totally different field to music and creativity then none of us would feel comfortable in posting anything at all. I, for one, think that you owe her an apology.

Another thing I was not impressed about was that you seemed to be making assumptions about the people here who are presenting positive arguments for psychic abilities. You seemed to be assuming that we all accept the evidence of psychic abilities unquestioningly, without any inclination or interest in knowing whether it really works or not. At last, in your long informative post you have given us a more complete idea of where you have obtained your information, and you also said "I don't know your educational background" and for me, that is the first instance where you have seemed to be aware of us as a group of distinct individuals with individual differences rather than a homogeneous mass of people lumped together under a category of believers rather than thinkers.

Amos and Andrés

Thank you for your positive and balancing contributions to this discussion.

Helen

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Bert
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 12:03 PM

Wolfgang,

That's a good point, there are some things a trained eye can spot. Often you can tell if a person has had ballet lessons by the way they walk. But my friend has no such training and I chose that one example because I felt that most of us could relate to it. She told me that water was important to me, before she ever knew that I was living on river front property at the time.

I don't know how she does it, but she can tell some very close and personal things about people.

The point I have been trying to make is that we should use the same 'standards' of judgement. If we say that these people must produce repeatable consistent results, then we should expect the same thing from the medical profession. I think it's fair to say that 'this phenomenon/treatment works SOME of the time' whether it be Tarot or cancer that we are talking about.

Bert.

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 05:11 AM

Bert,
if you can't think of an explanation within Newtonian Physics that doesn't mean there is no rational explanation within, let's say, psychology or physiology. For instance, I know of a person who can tell after hearing a few words if another person has had any training in singing and whether that training is recent or dates back. That's a feat I cannot replicate at all but he assures that this is just his expertise.
Some people can do astonishing things beyond normal abilities (some of them even don't know themselves how they do it) but not beyond rational explanation.
For me the safest approach is to say "don't know". Even if I can't think of a scientific explanation there might be one.
And regarding your friend, my 'explanation' above is just a wild guess. Possible, yes, with the present state of my knowledge, but I wouldn't bet upon it. There are many others and only one is that the laws of nature do not hold in this case.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 03:09 AM

Escamillo,

You are a scientist. You deal with facts. That is good. The profession that I have chosen, and that I am still in training for, deals with human interactions, and with feelings. Facts are important to you. Feelings and the quality of human interactions are important to me.

In my opinion, the subject of feelings sometimes does deserve a discussion. However, I think perhaps not here and not at this time.

Respectfully,

Carol