BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2

Subject: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 08:00 PM

This is a continuation of the thread entitled "Where Were the Psychics On 9/11". Since the topic has broadened, so has the title.

You know what to do...

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 08:53 PM

Part of the problen with this whole issue has to do with the boundaries and intersections between the brain, the mind, and the something-else-which-knows-using-them. Usually called "you", but subject to a lot of semantic confusion, since identifying "I" with a symbol is a very sluppery slope anyway.

Leaving brains aside for the moment, minds are full of things worthy of inspection. One thing they are full of is pictures, many of which come from the past, or seem to, even though they are regenerated on demand in the present. If you don't know what I am talking about just recall something you enjoyed recently -- a good laugh or a good meal or a good kiss or a win of some sort.

The other thing the mind is full of is images of possibility which are constantly being sized up to estimate the future. These are created views of what one things could happen or should happen or intends to see happen. They are dreamed up by the owner's ability as part of the effort to deal with problems in the physical universe, or social interactions, or other areas.

Rational processes such as we use every day involve shuffling these past and possible future images, and we usually reject future possibilities that seem unlikely based on our rational expectations. So even if you have a daydream about suddenly being tapped to become a movie star, you don't build your plan of action around it, usually.

In a seminar in Santa Barbara many years ago, on the exercise and development of innate abilities often thought of as psychic, Ingo Swann made the point that one of the biggest barriers to knowing on an extra-sensory basis is what he called "rational overlay". What he meant by that is instead of extending attention directly toward something remote in space or time, and knowing it, we tend by habit to then overlay our usual rational processes over it and filter what is there to be known by "thinking" about it. This cuts down the immediate perception and clouds it up with variosu judgements about what "should" be there, and as a result we don't see clearly anything that doesn't fit those filters and expectations.

Another factor which can easily confuse the whole picture is that of those past images, which we use so often to compare present situations against and leep our histories straight, many of them are painful and distressing, and for most of us, those sorts of memories can often add distress, smoke, assorted wild impulses and such to the equation. These elements of mental "noise" often distort what we see as having happened in the past, dim what we can think about clearly int he present, and influence what we envision as possible int he future. So the obfuscation gets compounded to the degree one is sitting temporarily or chronically in stirred up personal "baggage" to use a technical term. :>)

This may all be old hat to some of you who have studied the somewhat confused field, which is riddled with weird assertions and arbitraries and highly subjective views of every kind, which kind of understandably gives it a bad name in some circles. But when these factors are all accounted for the literature still presents a great deal of interesting evidence which suggests that those who report experiences such as remote viewing or remote knowing, or seeing from locations out of the body, may well be on to something, even if it is only understood through various glasses darkly.

It is of course also true that havingf such abilities roundly rejected, scorned, ridiculed or invalidated by peers can suffocate them. They are not molecules, after all, they are abilities which are itimately linked to the states of affinity, self-esteem, confidence and expectation of the owner. It would be silly to try to assess them outside that context, wouldn't it? Kind of like trying to study how fish swim in a vacuum, or something.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:00 PM

Well put, Professor. Reminds me of the beginning of "Space Odessy (Sp)" and the perfectly carved sculpture comes out of the ground as these apes are fighting over whatever they were fighting over because that's all they knew to do. Yet when this object appeared their was no wiring for them to know how to respond. Kindof like a squirrel in the road. Somehow, the apes and the squirrel each share the same problem (for lack of a better term) in their wiring as they search for solutions, explanations and options. Well, I undersatnd the ape's inability to process because the stimilus was new. As for the squirrels, hmmmmmmmm? You'd think as many times that they's almost had their rodent butts run down that they would process better. Heck, the little rats can figyre out squirrel proof birdfeeders, can't they.

You're right, Amos. A lot of folks are like the apes and, maybe a few like the squirrels, unfortunatly. I think it's one of those left brain/ right brain things that my lexdexic self never gets a good grasp on. I also think it has to do with one's spiriruality. But you're right. Some folk aren't gonna get and since they don't, as a defense mechaninism, theu're gonna attack those that do...

Hey, that's the way this *Ws* Ginnian seez it.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 05:27 AM

I think it has very little to do with right/left brain (one of my favorite topics) but more to do with openmindedness and attitude. But you're right Bobert, some will never get it...much like in Zen (and Wes Ginnny)...mooooooooooooo

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 07:17 AM

just a few thoughts to throw in for chewing on and hashing out before I head out to Baltimore for a digital editor's event.......

It's not so much a question of "What psychics know" as what is the difference between which pool or conciousphere one draws from ( the full range from the strictly rational to the purely intuitive and every combination of shade and hue in between) ,

the *act * of "gathering intelligence" ( harvesting selective info ) one has chosen to pursue ,

and how well one has develolped ( learned to listen to ) one's *intuition* as one navigates through one's purpose in life .

Case in point: Edgar Casey..........dicsuss

Madame Blavatsky comes next.

There , that should stimulate some *spirited* discussion........gotta go ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Ringer
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 09:51 AM

Thanks, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Peg
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 10:26 AM

who is Edgar Casey? Do you mean Edgar Cayce?

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 12:04 PM

Taliesn makes a fine point. You tend to get the channels that you put your attention on.

Peg, yes, he does mean Edgar Cayce. Put down that cattle prod! :>)

Cayce's oeuvre has a lot of very strange and marginal material in it; but it is of great interest to me that there were instances in it in which he diagnosed and prescribed successfully for individuals he had never met or heard of except for a single letter describing who they were.

This argues for some genuine connection-at-distance, given the improbability of doing it correctly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 04:28 AM

Thanks Amos. Yes ,considering the context of the thread I could only have been referring "the" Edgar Cayce and , aside the measure of his contribution to what has evolved into the present currency of "natural foods and herbal remedies" in "preventative medicine" , what has always fascinated me was the new drawing of a future map of U.S. after substantial *substantial* earth changes due this century. ( Cacye referred ti the "Ring of Fire" fault-line chain that runs the range of Pacific Ocean land masses back in the 1930's and oceanographic sounding maps have confirmed and are monitoring ever ynano-second now.)

Most Amercians whom have any awareness of our alotment of fault-line , already designated as "active", are aware of a long overdue cyclic earthquake zone of the New Madras fault in the Missouri share of the Mississippi River.

The next *Big One* due in this location will dwarf whatever "changes" will occur along the more popularly known ol' San Andreas out of the Left coast.

Basically the New Madras tremblar will be so major that the U.S. will be split into 2 land masses , and result in 2 independent political entities ( a western Libertarians "dream" )along the Mississippi River which ,during this event ,will have reveresed it's course at key points.

Cayce's "earth changes" readings aren't so hot for Europe either ,especially along its Mediterranean coastlines, but the bulk of the "earth changes will occur in the Pacific "Ring of Fire". Cayce designates the preverbial "canary in the mine" or "first domino",so to speak , will be the *disappearnace* of most of Japan "in the twinkling of an eye" and this will signal the beginning of a chain reaction of "earth events" that will most definitely be a "bumpy ride" during a single 24 hour cycle. Basically the coming *cyclic* shift in the earth's axsis; the last cycle was supposed to be what brought on one of the Ice Ages which, in essence was supposed to more of a repositioning of the polar caps due to the repositiioning of which new areas of the Earth were exposed to less accumulative sunlight and mass flooding due to where the previous polar caps melted.

I'm just reporting what Cayce put the on record as what he has *seen* in one of his sessions archived at the enter in Virginia Beach.

There , have fun with "that" one. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 04:36 AM

If psychics are so good, why don't they know that putting their little card through my door is no use at all because I will never go to them?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Allan Dennehy
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 05:45 AM

The problem for me is that there are more psychic wannabees around than there are flies on a field of cowshit. This means that to find a genuine psychic, if such an animal exists among the 99.99999999999999 per cent of wankers you would have to be a ....................................... psychic!

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 06:59 AM

Careful, LtS, never say never...ya never know!

Allan, it is exactly that kind of attitude which keeps those with real ability quiet, as in this thread and its precursors.

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 10:06 AM

(quote) "it is exactly that kind of attitude which keeps those with real ability quiet, as in this thread and its precursors."

Perhaps a bit of correction is called for atleast so far my attitude on the subject.

My original reason for posting the original thread about "Where were the psycjics on 911" is because I know there is such a thing as genuine abilities thanks to my dear passed Mother's extensive explorations into nutrition and "preventative medicine" ( decades before it became in vogue ) which also led to studying comparative religions and such .

I've been around this genre of inquiry and expereinces most of my life thanks to my Mother's library and to countless hours of fondly remembered discussions between us ; in no small part because I was the only one "open-minded" enough in our family to ask and to learn. ( hence the references to Capra's "Tao of Physics", Chardin, Jung, Cayce , Theosophists, etc.,etc. ).

It's also no secet by now that this talent is employed in police investigations in cases of *missing persons* as well as *profilers*. Gathering of military *intelligence* was employed , to varying degrees , by boths sides during "Cold War I ".

Anyway , the books of Edgar Cayce were pretty much the "launch points" for my Mother's path ; first because of his extensive work in natural *preventaive* medicines and then that which opened up to another path of inquiry altogether.

Thus I judiciously chose to enter Edgar Cayce's name into the discussion because of the copious *records* of his contribution to public knowledge as well as the public record of how he attained this knowledge.

So ,you see , my inquiry into why hadn't any *genuine* psychics gone on record with a premonition was *not* coming from a position of the usual ridicule , but was coming as a kind of admonition. I mean any event of that magnitude could *not* have gone un-sensed by those *genuinely* gifted.

So ,I thought entering Cayce's name into the mix in regrads to his "Earth Changes" reports would be , how shall I say ,*relavent* to the up-coming 9/11 remembrance and participation , by some , in the balancing of *healing*.

Your call. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 10:26 AM

Taliesn, I've got no quarrel with you and understand most of your reasonings for these threads, even if your rhetoric is a little convoluted, at times.:-)

I should have clarified, by "precursors" I meant several other threads besides yours which preceded this one, in which the bullies precluded any reasonable and open discussion about just those things you and your mother conversed upon.

I had a similar upbringing, through the influence of my brother, and have a great deal of experience, as well as years of studying such subjects, but absolutely no desire to get specific in these threads, as there are those who would not allow it past their ridicule, either outright or through so-called hard science.

Thanks for understanding,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 11:21 AM

My opinion, FWIW, is that we need to strive for "bulletproof" psychic abilities -- grounded in enough tranquility and certainty that ridicule is merely a breeze in passing, kinda like Spaw, and not something that is allowed to perturbate or compromise one's own clarity.

This of course is idealistic in the extreme. But it is worth working toward.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 02:05 PM

Tal:

There are a lot of wild variables in any "download" like Cayce's, ranging from the dubbing-in over personal whackiness, to the bizarre question of "downloading from Whom?". How much of your worldview would you want dictated by a being who couldn't muster the strength to operate a body? I mean, just because he (Cayce) taps into an external entity is no guarantee he's tapped in to a higher one. I would hazard that there are just as many loopy cases outside bodies as in 'em. Assuming that that is what he is doing in the first place which is problematic.

So I would be very much inclined just to smile and not politely when presented with these cosmic rundowns of inevitable turns of fate. I'd like to see a few more factual correlations before I start subscribing to anyone proposing that they are Channeling Higher Forces, or even Viewing the Universe from an Ascended Point of View :>).

Otherwise you run the risk of blind faith, which is almost as deleterious as blind ambition in our collective history.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 09:46 AM

A Case of Cayce (quote) "downloading from Whom?"......

Always a good question, more later.... (quote) "How much of your worldview would you want dictated by a being who couldn't muster the strength to operate a body? "

Bad question. I know your questioning is sincere ,but ,what's all this ".... your worldview " being " dictated by" and by " how much " Bushwah?. My worldview is harldy *dictated* by anyone beyond the physically *enforcable* rules of whichever prevailing regime system that hold sway over anyone. Being a confimred independent f, as stated in an earlier thread, for the better part of 20 years I investigate and compare and then make up my up own mind guided ultimately by a very natural *intuition* as my navigation technique of choice.

Considering the vast info-oceans of gathered intelligence sources one can not hope to begin to know where to look , forget ever knowing where all of the useful nuggets reside , without one's own inner guide.

That said , it also means I do not *limit* myself to the conventional wisdoms and orthodoxies because they ain't the "be all and end all" of what's going on either. They can't be because they are *designed* , from the get-go , to be a functional & manageable *box* of knowledge. I'm sure you're familiar with the now common catchphrase of "thinking outside the box" because of the syndrome of "the world looks like it's all nails if you're a hammer".

(quote) "I mean, just because he (Cayce) taps into an external entity is no guarantee he's tapped in to a higher one. I would hazard that there are just as many loopy cases outside bodies as in 'em. "

Oh absolutely and without a moment's doubt. That is why I stressed that those with professed *psychic* abilities are not to be confused as a *defcto* source of wisdom. However there are precdents on the contributions of those with *vision* that go beyond the private , even *elite* , cirlces ,cliques, and sometimes "cults" of personalities with gifts of varying quality and motives.

In my judgement I thought entering the "Cayce Files", if you will , into the thread would withstand the garden variety knee-jerk dismissals and spark some more useful debate. His *contribution* to what has now become the common currency of preventative medicine culture , no matter the source , would give pause.

Further I believed that his predicitons of substantial Earth changes are at the very least worth watching. No less a source of *conventional wisdom* as National Geographic has published authoritative articles on how scientists have found geological record of the *wanderings* of the Earth's magnetic Poles and are continuing to monitor this as well as the increase in other *Earth changes* that are barely able to kept out of the news.

The tectonic plates and their webwork of intercoherent faultlines rining the Pacific is well-established and *mapped* now. ..... some several generations after the recording of what's become Cacye's codex.

Your call. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Hecate
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 09:55 AM

Having the occasional incliantion that way, I'd like to pass comment. I think for many people being psychic is something that sometimes happens to them rather than something they have any control over, and it isn't reliable. I tend to know when someone close to me is going to die, on the whole its a 'gift' I could happily live without. I occasionaly know stuff I shouldn't about people - just odd detials, more often trivial than not. This I gather is a trait in the women of my family. It doesn't mean I can predict the lottery, or disasters or the like. It might mean I know someone is going to phone me, or that an old friend has lost my address and I should phone them. Every now and then it is actually useful, but most of the time its more a blessing than a curse, made more difficult by the fact that most people, if I talked about it, would think I was totally mad.

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 10:08 AM

Well, keep working on it H, and when you can predict the lottery, do let me know. We'll have a lot to discuss!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 11:20 AM

keep working on it H, and when you can predict the lottery, do let me know.

My, Amos, if I didn't know better (or, perhaps I don't) I'd say you're mocking about precognitive abilities and come dangerously close to a kind of attitude which keeps those with real ability quiet.

Your one-liner resembled a bit the thinking behind a skeptical anecdote (which I believe to be an invention) that when a committee had to decide about a grant proposal for research on precognition one scientist quipped: "If it doesn't work, they shouldn't get the grant, if it works they don't need it?"

On the other hand, you seem to understand what Taliesn means and that ability borders at the supernatural. But maybe I just have to try a bit harder.

Cayce? His track record is full of wrong predictions (China will be Christian by 1984 etc.). Never been tested in a controlled experiment during his long career. J. B. Rhine, the father of parapsychological lab research is on the record for thinking not much of Cayce. I just looked it up in the pro-parapsychology literature on my shelf: Cayce is often not even mentioned and if he is there is a large dose of skepticism.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 11:46 AM

"If it doesn't work, they shouldn't get the grant, if it works they don't need it?"

By those parameters, many endeavours, scientific (esp. medicine) and otherwise, should never get funded, since it isn't proven they will work until they've been studied.

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 11:58 AM

Bravo, kat. I agree, you have correctly pointed out that the logic in that joke-like anecdote is faulty.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 12:00 PM

Of course -- Cayce was a loose cannon, ability running rampant with no effort to analyze or control scientifically, and all the alterations, dub-overs, half-truths and confusions such an adventure is typically heir to. I don't know what sort of tabulation the gang in Va. Beach have done since then.

But just to be clear I meant no mockery of Hecate's post; I believe almost all those who have working psychic abilities in their make up run into the same problem Hecate identified -- the issue of partial certainties, wildy variable degree and timing of awareness, and the constant collision with noise factors.

Noise factors include:

a. Personal noise from past distress

b. Present duress including problems, feeling challenged or unaccepted, self-invalidation and self-degradation, and the "peering" effect of trying with effort to perceive through barriers, which generates its own noise.

c. Psychic noise, which can include elements like the myriad storms of mental business in the neighborhood, control efforts from the small-minded or fear-driven among one's connections, efforts to hide and shield information, and the general background hum of popular psychoses.

d. Physical noise from one's own body, or similar from others.

e. Personal variations of the overlay phenomenon, such as an inability to look at certain areas, resistance to certain subjects or kinds of people, being upset with certain reminders, and so on.

These are a partial inventory of the things you can run into, and there are certainly a lot of items I haven't mentioned. ALl this really muddies the waters, especially for someone who hasn't studied the field much and is just wrestling with occasional precogs or remote views from time to time.

(The applicants for the grant already knew there would be a wiseguy on the comittee, but they felt they had to try anyway. Obviously, there are a lot of gradations and a lot of factors in play, andf research into sorting these out, discovering what if anything increases accuracy and stability of the phenomena, and so on, would be worthwhile IMHO.)

I also feel a certain amount of levity is always in order, because excessive seriousness is (again, IMHO) a sure detriment to the real phenomena.

Hope this is understood. Hecate -- NOI! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 12:33 PM

Amos,

I have no problem at all with the noise argument. I've done experiments at the threshold of detectability and I know that noise of several kinds and variability of performance can make it very difficult to detect a signal.

However, if in many trials the performance isn't (not each time, for sure, but on the average) above chance level, one possibility is that noise is all there is.

The lottery companies, by the way, check the distributions they get against chance just to make sure that there is no extrachance influence.

I love the new thread title: Psychics - what do they know

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Psychics -- What Do They Know? Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 12:42 PM

Wolfgang:

Now you're up against the whole issue of qualitas and the whatness-of-which versus the howness of Who.

The short version is, if noise were all there were, no-one would know anything.

Instead, knowing --in a remarkable spectrum of kinds and degrees--permeates our existence in every thought and moment.

You, for example, are not a noise. Someone was looking at all that noise. Whodat?

Warmest regards,

A