Conference hydra::dejavu

    YES YES!!!  In fact I have recently started communicating
    with two people, I met each thru NOTES....I feel so very
    close to each of them.  We have so many things in common,
    and there (this is hard to describe!) feels like a psychic
    bond between us....it's almost eerie!
    
    Even odder-I sent for the psychic handwriting analysis
    mentioned elsewhere in the conference.  She mentioned that
    I had several close friends o the East Coast.  At the time
    nothing could have been farther from the truth!  I'm fro
    the West Coast and have very negative feelings about the
    New York and Mass. area...(based on past experiences).
    Now, 2 months later, what she said is true!!!
    
    Now, waiting patiently for "Brian" to appear....
    
    

    I'm getting it too.  A couple of people have mailed me about a couple
    of my notes and I get a lot of warm fuzzies when I see a mail message
    with their names in the 'From:' field.
    
    I never thought E-mail could carry +/- energies but I also got the
    negative kind when I got mail from a notorious network guerilla
    noter.
    
    You know who you are...  :-)

    There are several people I have gotten to know through notes, and
    even some that I later got to meet in person.  With the ones I got
    to meet, our first meeting was like being with someone you had known
    for months, but strange in that you didn't know what they looked
    like in advance.  Certainly a nice way to get to know people without
    looking at the external parts about them (age, appearance, race,
    etc.)  BTW, this subject has been discussed in the Human_relations
    file.
    
    Elizabeth

    Yes, yes!  I've gotten 'good vibes' from a few persons in
    this file, and corresponded with them since.  Sometimes simple
    curiousity gets the better of me though...
    
    Theresa.

    In the "Who are you" note in this conference I once read an entry
    and felt very glad she had come.  I'd never seen her name before
    but I wanted very much to welcome her.
    
    I've never felt that way about a single note before or since.  It
    just happened.
    
    And no.  I didn't even send her mail.
    
    Tom

    This happens to me too.  Kind of like a group mind or something.

      Our higher conscious mind is always aware of the people who are
      going to send us mail or going to be at certain places at certain 
      time.
    
      It is obvious to have positive or negative feelings about those
      entities we have encountered before and no feelings for the
      new contacts.

      I sent mail to few people to check their reactions and the response
      has been mixed and I try to rationalise the issue by the above
      paragraph.

    I too have experienced this phenomena ... so strongly to the point
    that it would move my emotions, forcing me to respond. Maybe there
    is a pre-existence of a sort? I don't know. I have written to some
    and they (HELLO CS_ANGEL +=+) have responded in like fashion. 
    
    Just recently I have been corrosponding with a woman who is swiftly
    and surely becoming my friend, from the first my hormonal structure
    went into stunt flying mode. No explanation ..... (Sweet Arabian
    Nights .... if you read this you know who you are ...) She feels
    the same reaction, also no explanation. 
    
    In fact ... a mutual acquaintance ( :-) ) did our charts and compared
    the two .... our lives seem fated to intertwine.
    
    This is a most unusual phenomena yet, sweet and pleasant!
    
    Virgo 

    YESSS!
    
    There is a person, ERASR::KALLIS, that makes me feel that way!
    Someday, somehow, I plan to meet this person!  He strikes me as
    being a very well versed, well read individual, and those are
    so few and far between these days!
    
    Oh, I love this "Notes"!!!
    
    Jean
    

    .9
    I totally agree with you!!!Every time I have a question he answers
    it, and it makes sense! Not like those who are just guessing!! Also
    very good with info is pbsvax::cooper. Otherwise known as "Topher".
    It's not a romantic feeling, but it's nice to have someone who really
    wants to hear what you have to say, and these two guys are that
    way EXACTLY!!!
    
    -rle.

    re: .10 (rle)
    
    >>	Not like those who are just guessing!!
    
    	My friend, no one knows for sure.
    
    						Carla
    

    re:  -.2
      
         I would agree with you.  It *is* very nice to have available
    storehouses of knowledge.  It has been said that modern man can
    no longer warehouse all the available information (whereas at one
    time he/she could.)  But what we *do* have, however, is incredible
    access to lots of information.  Technology, for one, has afforded
    us that luxury.  This is quite a boon to many of us, especially
    those whose mental capacities are not quite up to storing and
    retrieving volumes at command.  It is always impressive to *discover*
    a person who has these abilities.  I, too, thank both the mentioned
    men for their expertise.  But there are many others who contribute
    just as well (as Carla implied) though in perhaps subtler fashion.
    I thank those individuals as well.
     
         As a related but separate note, I get a kick out of people
    who talk about pseudo-science (this is a newly popularized term,
    I believe.)  For within that term (psuedo-science) there is an
    implication that science is the answer to everything and anything
    that *sounds* like it but isn't (according to the stater's criteria,
    no doubt) is not worthy of consideration.  After more than a year
    of reading entries within just this conference, it is *more* clear
    to me than ever before that science is not an answer for *everything.*
    And I am grateful to those who are willing to validate that to me.
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .10
    
    Thanks.  Its good to be appreciated.
    
RE: .10,.11,.12
    
    All knowledge is uncertain, all knowledge is based, one way or another,
    on faith.  Methods of attaining knowledge which seeks to minimize
    the amount of knowledge which must simply be taken on faith and
    to account for the uncertainty in all knowledge is called science.
    Science in this broad sense should not be confused with its current
    embodiment -- since it evolves -- and should certainly not be confused
    with the human institutions which attempt to use it.
    
    I give the best answers I am able to on the basis of knowledge which
    has been garnered by the methods of science to questions raised
    here.  This is an area of great complexity and difficulty to which
    science has only just begun to make some headway.  The "scientific"
    knowledge here is much more uncertain than in simpler fields like
    chemistry, and much of what I say is my own synthesis of that
    knowledge using my own understanding of scientific methods (every
    scientist has slightly different understanding of those methods
    and how they apply in practice).  I always try to qualify my statements
    to indicate relative uncertainty by using such phrases as, "it would
    seem", "there is evidence", "it seems", "probably..." etc.
    
    There are types of questions which science in its present form cannot
    answer.  There are other types of questions which will, it would
    seem, always be beyond the type of knowledge acquisition which science
    represents/is.  To these questions science says, "What you believe
    will have no consequeces from my viewpoint -- choose your belief by
    faith."
    
    Those who speak with the authority of science gain credibility in
    our society.  Those who claim to speak with that authority but who
    simply imitate its outward form in order to gain the social credibility
    (i.e., those behind the "creation science" nonesense) are termed
    "pseudo-scientists".  Also, those who claim to speak with that
    authority but who are simply ignorant of its methods (i.e., Von
    Daniken (sp?)) are also called pseudo-scientists.  It is at times hard
    to draw a line with this latter kind between "pseudo-science" and
    "poor science", so I prefer to reserve the term for those with
    apparent fraudulent motives (albeit, serving as they think, "a
    higher Truth").
    
    There are those who apply the label of "pseudo-science" to anything
    which challenges the currently held world-view, whether or not the
    people involved claim the authority of science, and if they claim
    that authority, independent of the basis of that claim.  They say,
    "Since we *know* that this is not true, anything which implies
    otherwise is wrong and attack on right thinking rationality."
    Needless to say, this is *very* bad science, and makes the term
    "pseudo-science" purely subjective and almost meaningless.    

    Re .13 (Topher):
    
    >There are those who apply the label of "pseudo-science" to anything
    >which challenges the currently held world-view, whether or not the
    >people involved claim the authority of science, and if they claim
    >that authority, independent of the basis of that claim.  They say,
    >"Since we *know* that this is not true, anything which implies
    >otherwise is wrong and attack on right thinking rationality."
    >Needless to say, this is *very* bad science, and makes the term
    >"pseudo-science" purely subjective and almost meaningless.    
     
    This has interesting consequences.  Not so very long ago, there
    was a folk remedy to minimize or stop the bleeding of a wound: put
    threads of a spider's web over the wound.  This was pooh-poohed
    for some time; however, in the last decade or so, careful research
    revealed that there was some truth in this remedy.  A _clean_ spiderweb
    thread apparently reacts chemically with blood so as to increase
    the clotting factor; also, a clean spiderweb is effectively free
    of germs.  Therefore, for some wounds, this is a perfectly adequate
    folk remedy.  Yet prior to that research (possibly the result of
    someone's university grant), the established medical community
    considered the remedy as just so much superstition.  
    
    I use this as an example to point out two things: one, the above;
    the other, Topher's point that what might not be understandable
    today might be understood in time.
    
    In the late Fifteenth and early Sixteentgh Centuries, there lived
    a rather remarkable man who became a physician and signed himself
    Paracelsus.  He broke with the medical tradition of his time by,
    among other things, traveling among the local folk and learning
    about folk-medicine cures.  He was considered something of a charlatan
    by his peers ("His remedies are not part of accepted practice,
    therefore, we can _prove_ that his approach is a bad one," approxi-
    mately); however, because he was an honest researcher, his success
    rate for cures was better than his contemporaries.  (In fact, he
    cured some patients other physicians of the time had pronounced
    incurable.)  He was, however, vain and boastful. He was killed in
    a tavern brawl, and there is some evidence that jealous physicians
    hired goons to do him in.
    
    Paracelsus was a physician; however, in the discussion of "science,"
    he wasn't a scientist; he was an engineer.  An engineer may not
    fully comprehend the theoretical model that makes the material,
    electrons, or whatever, work as they do; but he or she knows the
    effect of doing certain things well enough so that whatever ends
    desired can be achieved, if possible.  [Paracelsus didn't understand
    germs; however, some of his treatments with metallic salts killed
    the germs he didn't know about.]
    
    Much of the research into paranormal phenomena falls into the
    "engineering" side of things; however, once people accept the idea
    that there are real phenomena involved, the scientific investigation
    will become miore "acceptable," and "pseudo-" will be dropped from
    a lot of characterizations of psi research.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.